Cargando…

Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE: Controversy exists regarding the outcomes following ventral hernia repair with polypropylene (PP) or polyester (PET) mesh. Monofilament PP less frequently requires extraction in the setting of contamination compared to multifilament PET mesh. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Totten, Crystal, Becker, Patrice, Lourd, Mathilde, Roth, J Scott
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31572024
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S198988
_version_ 1783451953472208896
author Totten, Crystal
Becker, Patrice
Lourd, Mathilde
Roth, J Scott
author_facet Totten, Crystal
Becker, Patrice
Lourd, Mathilde
Roth, J Scott
author_sort Totten, Crystal
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Controversy exists regarding the outcomes following ventral hernia repair with polypropylene (PP) or polyester (PET) mesh. Monofilament PP less frequently requires extraction in the setting of contamination compared to multifilament PET mesh. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical outcomes of ventral hernia repair with PP and PET mesh. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Ovid search platform. Criteria included ventral hernia repair publications using either PP or PET mesh with a minimum follow-up duration of one year. Included studies were subject to data extraction including mesh position, weight, recurrence rates, infection, and complications. Random effect meta-analysis was run to provide pooled event rate and 95% CI. RESULTS: Ninety-seven studies including a total of 10,022 patients were included in the final analysis. Hernia recurrence rates are similar (4.8%, 95% CI [3.5–6.5] vs 4.7%, 95% CI [3.7–6.0]) as well as mesh infection rates (3.5%, 95% CI [2.5–4.9] vs 5.0%, 95% CI [3.9–6.3]) between PET and PP, respectively. Mesh infections occurred less frequently in laparoscopic repair compared to open (1.6%, 95% CI [0.9–2.6] vs 5.2%, 95% CI [4.3–6.3]). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that mesh material does not affect recurrence or infection in ventral hernia repair and that surgery can be safely performed with both PP and PET mesh. A laparoscopic approach is associated with a decreased infection rate compared to open repair independent of mesh type.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6747676
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67476762019-09-30 Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review Totten, Crystal Becker, Patrice Lourd, Mathilde Roth, J Scott Med Devices (Auckl) Review PURPOSE: Controversy exists regarding the outcomes following ventral hernia repair with polypropylene (PP) or polyester (PET) mesh. Monofilament PP less frequently requires extraction in the setting of contamination compared to multifilament PET mesh. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical outcomes of ventral hernia repair with PP and PET mesh. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Ovid search platform. Criteria included ventral hernia repair publications using either PP or PET mesh with a minimum follow-up duration of one year. Included studies were subject to data extraction including mesh position, weight, recurrence rates, infection, and complications. Random effect meta-analysis was run to provide pooled event rate and 95% CI. RESULTS: Ninety-seven studies including a total of 10,022 patients were included in the final analysis. Hernia recurrence rates are similar (4.8%, 95% CI [3.5–6.5] vs 4.7%, 95% CI [3.7–6.0]) as well as mesh infection rates (3.5%, 95% CI [2.5–4.9] vs 5.0%, 95% CI [3.9–6.3]) between PET and PP, respectively. Mesh infections occurred less frequently in laparoscopic repair compared to open (1.6%, 95% CI [0.9–2.6] vs 5.2%, 95% CI [4.3–6.3]). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that mesh material does not affect recurrence or infection in ventral hernia repair and that surgery can be safely performed with both PP and PET mesh. A laparoscopic approach is associated with a decreased infection rate compared to open repair independent of mesh type. Dove 2019-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6747676/ /pubmed/31572024 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S198988 Text en © 2019 Totten et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Review
Totten, Crystal
Becker, Patrice
Lourd, Mathilde
Roth, J Scott
Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_full Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_fullStr Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_short Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_sort polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? a meta-analysis and systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31572024
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S198988
work_keys_str_mv AT tottencrystal polyestervspolypropylenedomeshmaterialsmatterametaanalysisandsystematicreview
AT beckerpatrice polyestervspolypropylenedomeshmaterialsmatterametaanalysisandsystematicreview
AT lourdmathilde polyestervspolypropylenedomeshmaterialsmatterametaanalysisandsystematicreview
AT rothjscott polyestervspolypropylenedomeshmaterialsmatterametaanalysisandsystematicreview