Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 826–835 | Cite as

Suture Versus Mesh Repair in Primary and Incisional Ventral Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Tim MathesEmail author
  • Maren Walgenbach
  • Robert Siegel
Original Scientific Report

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Hernia Repair Incisional Hernia Ventral Hernia Mesh Repair Ventral Hernia Repair 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Author contributions

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.

Disclosure

None

Funding

There was no funding for this systematic review.

Supplementary material

268_2015_3311_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Itani KM, Hur K, Kim LT et al (2010) Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair with mesh for the treatment of ventral incisional hernia: a randomized trial. Arch Surg 145(4):322–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abdel-Baki NA, Bessa SS, Abdel-Razek AH (2007) Comparison of prosthetic mesh repair and tissue repair in the emergency management of incarcerated para-umbilical hernia: a prospective randomized study. Hernia 11(2):163–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Venclauskas L, Maleckas A, Kiudelis M (2010) One-year follow-up after incisional hernia treatment: results of a prospective randomized study. Hernia 14:575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeMaria EJ, Moss JM, Sugerman HJ (2000) Laparoscopic intraperitoneal polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) prosthetic patch repair of ventral hernia. Prospective comparison to open prefascial polypropylene mesh repair. Surg Endosc 14(4):326–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    LeBlanc KA, Booth WV (1993) Laparoscopic repair of incisional abdominal hernias using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene: preliminary findings. Surg Laparosc Endosc 3(1):39–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(4):264–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A et al (2013) Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol 66(9):973–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y et al (2009) Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 339:b4012PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ammar SA (2010) Management of complicated umbilical hernias in cirrhotic patients using permanent mesh: randomized clinical trial. Hernia 14(1):35–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arroyo A, Garcia P, Perez F et al (2001) Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults. Br J Surg 88(10):1321–1323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC et al (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240(4):578–583PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Korenkov M, Sauerland S, Arndt M et al (2002) Randomized clinical trial of suture repair, polypropylene mesh or autodermal hernioplasty for incisional hernia. Br J Surg 89(1):50–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Polat C, Dervisoglu A, Senyurek G et al (2005) Umbilical hernia repair with the prolene hernia system. Am J Surg 190(1):61–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343(6):392–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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
  21. 21.
    Nguyen MT, Berger RL, Hicks SC et al (2014) Comparison of outcomes of synthetic mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 149(5):415–421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Aslani N, Brown CJ (2010) Does mesh offer an advantage over tissue in the open repair of umbilical hernias? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 14(5):455–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Timmermans L, de Goede B, van Dijk SM et al (2014) Meta-analysis of sublay versus onlay mesh repair in incisional hernia surgery. Am J Surg 207(6):980–988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sajid MS, Parampalli U, McFall MR (2013) A meta-analysis comparing tacker mesh fixation with suture mesh fixation in laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair. Hernia 17(2):159–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health-School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative MedicineWitten/Herdecke UniversityCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, HELIOS Klinikum Berlin-Buch and Faculty of Health-Witten/Herdecke UniversityHELIOS KlinikumBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations