Advertisement

Hernia

pp 1–9 | Cite as

Fibrin versus cyanoacrylate glue for fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a network meta-analysis and indirect comparison

  • Kelli TavaresEmail author
  • John Mayo
  • Kenneth Bogenberger
  • S. Scott DavisJr.
  • Christopher Yheulon
Review
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Evidence has demonstrated that biosynthetic glue for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair results in decreased pain. However, the two glue sub-types (biologic—fibrin based; synthetic—cyanoacrylate based) have never been compared. This study aims to assess the outcomes of those subtypes.

Method and procedures

A systematic review of the MEDLINE database was undertaken. Randomized trials assessing the outcomes of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with penetrating and glue fixation methods were considered for inclusion and data analysis. Thirteen trials involving 1947 laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs were identified with eight trials utilizing fibrin and five trials utilizing cyanoacrylate.

Results

There were no differences in recurrence or wound infection between the glue subtypes when compared individually to penetrating fixation alone or indirectly to each other. There were non-significant trends in reduction of hematoma and seroma for both glue subtypes when compared to penetrating fixation (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39–1.40). There was a significant reduction in urinary retention with glue fixation (pooled results of both sub-types) when compared to penetrating fixation (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13–0.83).

Conclusions

Glue fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair reduces the incidence of urinary retention and may reduce the rate of hematoma or seroma formation. As there are no differences in outcomes when comparing fibrin or cyanoacrylate glue, surgeons should choose the glue that is available at the lowest cost at their respective institutions.

Keywords

Fibrin glue Cyanoacrylate glue Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair Fixation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was not required.

Human and animal rights

As this was a systematic review of the literature, no human rights, animal rights were involved.

Informed consent

None.

Supplementary material

10029_2019_2072_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (10 kb)
Supplementary file1 (XLSX 11 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Rutkow IM (2003) Demographic and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States in 2003. Surg Clin N Am 83(1045–1051):v–viGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nguyen DK, Amid PK, Chen DC (2016) Groin pain after inguinal hernia repair. Adv Surg 50:203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bobo Z, Nan W, Qin Q, Tao W, Jianguo L, Xianli H (2014) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing Lichtenstein and totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernioplasty in treatment of inguinal hernias. J Surg Res 192:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li J, Ji Z, Li Y (2014) Comparison of laparoscopic versus open procedure in the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis of the results. Am J Surg 207:602–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antoniou SA, Kohler G, Antoniou GA, Muysoms FE, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2016) Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing nonpenetrating vs mechanical mesh fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 211:239–249.e232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spotnitz WD (2012) Hemostats, sealants, and adhesives: a practical guide for the surgeon. Am Surg 78:1305–1321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robinson KA, Dickersin K (2002) Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol 31:150–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clin Res ed) 343:d5928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kiefer C, Sturtz S, Bender R (2015) Indirect comparisons and network meta-analyses. Deutsches Arzteblatt Int 112:803–808Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N (2015) Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemp Clin Trials 45:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brugger L, Bloesch M, Ipaktchi R, Kurmann A, Candinas D, Beldi G (2012) Objective hypoesthesia and pain after transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty: a prospective, randomized study comparing tissue adhesive versus spiral tacks. Surg Endosc 26:1079–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chandra P, Phalgune D, Shah S (2016) Comparison of the clinical outcome and complications in laparoscopic hernia repair of inguinal hernia with mesh fixation using fibrin glue vs tacker. Indian J Surg 78:464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cristaudo A, Nayak A, Martin S, Adib R, Martin I (2015) A prospective randomised trial comparing mesh types and fixation in totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repairs. Int J Surg (London, England) 17:79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fortelny RH, Petter-Puchner AH, May C, Jaksch W, Benesch T, Khakpour Z, Redl H, Glaser KS (2012) The impact of atraumatic fibrin sealant vs. staple mesh fixation in TAPP hernia repair on chronic pain and quality of life: results of a randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc 26:249–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jani K (2016) Randomised controlled trial of n-butyl cyanoacrylate glue fixation versus suture fixation of mesh in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernia repair. J Minim Access Surg 12:118–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lau H (2005) Fibrin sealant versus mechanical stapling for mesh fixation during endoscopic extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty: a randomized prospective trial. Ann Surg 242:670–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liew W, Wai YY, Kosai NR, Gendeh HS (2017) Tackers versus glue mesh fixation: an objective assessment of postoperative acute and chronic pain using inflammatory markers. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg 21:549–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lovisetto F, Zonta S, Rota E, Mazzilli M, Bardone M, Bottero L, Faillace G, Longoni M (2007) Use of human fibrin glue (Tissucol) versus staples for mesh fixation in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty: a prospective, randomized study. Ann Surg 245:222–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Melissa CS, Bun TAY, Wing CK, Chung TY, Wai NEK, Tat LH (2014) Randomized double-blinded prospective trial of fibrin sealant spray versus mechanical stapling in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernioplasty. Ann Surg 259:432–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moreno-Egea A (2014) Is it possible to eliminate sutures in open (Lichtenstein technique) and laparoscopic (totally extraperitoneal endoscopic) inguinal hernia repair? A randomized controlled trial with tissue adhesive (n-hexyl-alpha-cyanoacrylate). Surg Innov 21:590–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olmi S, Scaini A, Erba L, Guaglio M, Croce E (2007) Quantification of pain in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernioplasty identifies marked differences between prosthesis fixation systems. Surgery 142:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Subwongcharoen S, Ruksakul K (2013) A randomized controlled trial of staple fixation versus N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. J Med Assoc Thailand 96 Suppl 3:S8–13Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tolver MA, Rosenberg J, Juul P, Bisgaard T (2013) Randomized clinical trial of fibrin glue versus tacked fixation in laparoscopic groin hernia repair. Surg Endosc 27:2727–2733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roadman D, Helm M, Goldblatt MI, Kastenmeier A, Kindel TL, Gould JC, Higgins RM (2018) Postoperative urinary retention after laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. J Surg Res 231:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jensen P, Mikkelsen T, Kehlet H (2002) Postherniorrhaphy urinary retention—effect of local, regional, and general anesthesia: a review. Reg Anesth Pain Med 27:612–617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koch CA, Greenlee SM, Larson DR, Harrington JR, Farley DR (2006) Randomized prospective study of totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: fixation versus no fixation of mesh. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 10:457–460Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patel JA, Kaufman AS, Howard RS, Rodriguez CJ, Jessie EM (2015) Risk factors for urinary retention after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs. Surg Endosc 29:3140–3145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sivasankaran MV, Pham T, Divino CM (2014) Incidence and risk factors for urinary retention following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 207:288–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sajid MS, Ladwa N, Kalra L, McFall M, Baig MK, Sains P (2013) A meta-analysis examining the use of tacker mesh fixation versus glue mesh fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 206:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryTripler Army Medical CenterHonoluluUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations