Open darn repair vs open mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies
To compare the outcomes of open darn repair vs open mesh repair in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair.
We performed a systematic review and conducted a search of electronic information sources to identify all observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating outcomes of open darn repair vs open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Hernia recurrence was considered as the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures included surgical site infection (SSI), haematoma, seroma, neuralgia, urinary retention, length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activities or work, testicular atrophy, operative time and chronic pain. Random or fixed effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data.
Six RCTs, enrolling 1480 patients with 1485 hernias, and 4 observational studies, enrolling 1564 patients with 1641 hernias, were included. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed no significant difference in terms of recurrence (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.01 to 0.01, P = 0.86), SSI (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46–1.49, P = 0.52), haematoma (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62–2.38, P = 0.57), seroma (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42–1.65, P = 0.60), neuralgia (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29–3.73, P = 0.94), urinary retention (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.64–3.21, P = 0.38), length of hospital stay (MD 0.09, 95% CI − 0.28 to 0.46, P = 0.63), time to return to normal activities or work (MD 0.88, 95% CI − 0.90 to 2.66, P = 0.33), testicular atrophy (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.02 to 0.02, P = 1.00), and operative time (MD 2.69, 95% CI − 1.75 to 7.14, P = 0.62) between the darn repair and mesh repair groups. Meta-analysis of observational studies also showed no significant difference in terms of recurrence (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.02 to 0.02, P = 0.99), SSI (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.14–1.62, P = 0.23), haematoma (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.45–2.55, P = 0.89), seroma (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01–2.27, P = 0.16), neuralgia (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.05–1.21, P = 0.08), urinary retention (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.20–11.96, P = 0.69), time to return to normal activities or work (MD 2.13, 95% CI − 2.18 to 6.44, P = 0.33), testicular atrophy (RD − 0.01, 95% CI − 0.02 to 0.01, P = 0.49), and operative time (MD − 4.76, 95% CI − 13.23 to 3.71, P = 0.27) between the two groups. The evidence was inconclusive for chronic pain. The quality of available evidence was moderate.
Our results suggest that open darn repair is comparable with open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Considering that consequences of mesh complications in inguinal hernia repair, albeit rare, can be significant, open darn repair provides an equally credible alternative to open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Further studies are required to investigate patient-reported outcomes and to elicit a superior non-mesh technique.
KeywordsInguinal hernia Darn repair Mesh repair
Conception and design: SH. Data collection: DAF, VAM, and SH. Analysis and interpretation: DAF and SH. Writing the article: DAF and SH. Critical revision of the article: DAF and SH. Final approval of the article: DAF, VAM and SH. Statistical analysis: SH.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
DAF declares no conflict of interest. VAM declares no conflict of interest. SH declares no conflict of interest.
Considering the nature of this study, ethical approval was not required.
Human and animal rights
This study is a systematic review with meta-analysis of outcomes which does not include research directly involving human or animal participation.
Considering the nature of this study, informed consent was not required.
- 3.Bekker J, Keeman JN, Simons MP, Aufenacker TJ (2007) A brief history of the inguinal hernia operation in adults. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 151(16):924–931Google Scholar
- 9.Maingot R (1949) Floss silk darn for inguinal hernia. Proc R Soc Med 42(7):465Google Scholar
- 10.Spencer SL (1962) Premuscular nylon darn in inguinal hernia repair. Surg Gynecol Obstet 115:498–500Google Scholar
- 14.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Higgins JP, Green S (eds) (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated September–March 2011). http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
- 22.Al-Saiegh AM, Al-Saffar RS, Al-Khassaki HT (2009) Tension–free inguinal hernia repair comparing ‘mesh’ with ‘darn’ a prospective randomized clinical trial. Iraqi Postgrad Med J 8(3):220–227Google Scholar
- 29.Gilbert AI, Felton LL (1993) Infection in inguinal hernia repair considering biomaterials and antibiotics. Surg Gynecol Obstet 177:126–130Google Scholar
- 30.Montgomery A, Kallinowski F, Köckerling F (2015) Evidence for replacement of an infected synthetic by a biological mesh in abdominal wall hernia repair. Front Surg 2(67):1 – 6Google Scholar
- 31.Amato B, Moja L, Panico S, Persico G, Rispoli C, Rocco N, Moschetti I (2012) Shouldice technique versus other open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD001543Google Scholar