Suture Versus Mesh Repair in Primary and Incisional Ventral Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Today, ventral hernia repair is predominantly performed with meshes. There is no meta-analysis of high quality evidence that compares the results of suture to mesh repair. The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to compare patient centred outcomes of suture versus mesh repair.
A systematic literature search was performed in EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL (inception to 06/2014). Furthermore a hand search was performed. RCTs comparing suture versus mesh repair in primary and incisional ventral hernia repair were included. Data on patient characteristics, interventions and results were extracted in standardized tables. Risk of bias was assessed with the cochrane risk of bias tool. Results of studies were pooled with a meta-analysis. All steps were performed by two reviewers. Discrepancies were discussed until a consensus.
The search in the databases resulted in 1560 hits. After screening, 10 randomized controlled trials including 1215 patients satisfied all inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was moderate to high. The relative risk for recurrence was 0.36 [95% CI (0.27, 0.49); I 2 = 0; heterogeneity p = 0.70]. Other complications did not differ significantly. Results for chronic pain were heterogeneous across studies.
Mesh repair reduces the number of recurrences significantly. In patients without recurrence mesh repairs seem to be associated with a risk of chronic pain especially if the mesh is fixed sublay.
KeywordsHernia Repair Incisional Hernia Ventral Hernia Mesh Repair Ventral Hernia Repair
Tim Mathes: Idea for the review, literature search, selection of literature, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, preparation of meta-analysis, writing of manuscript. Maren Walgenbach: Selection of literature, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, review of manuscript. Robert Siegel: Clinical expertise, interpretation of data, revision of manuscript.
Complaince with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Nothing to declare.
There was no funding for this systematic review.
- 1.Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16(3):CD007781Google Scholar
- 8.Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0. The cochrane collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed Mar 2011
- 17.de Vries Reilingh TS, van Goor H, Charbon JA et al (2007) Repair of giant midline abdominal wall hernias: “components separation technique” versus prosthetic repair : interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 31(4):756–763. doi: 10.1007/s00268-006-0502-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Weber G, Baracs J, Horvath OP (2010) [“Onlay” mesh provides significantly better results than “sublay” reconstruction. Prospective randomized multicenter study of abdominal wall reconstruction with sutures only, or with surgical mesh–results of a five-years follow-up]. Magy Seb 63(5):302–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Lal K, Laghari ZH, Laghari AA et al (2012) A comparative study of anatomical repair versus mesh repair in paraumbilical hernia. Med Channel 19(2):110–113Google Scholar
- 22.den Hartog D, Dur AH, Tuinebreijer WE et al (2008) Open surgical procedures for incisional hernias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16(3):CD006438Google Scholar