Cargando…

Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – A systematic review and meta‐analysis

AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair. METHOD: All original studies (n ≥ 2 patients) reporting recurrence rates after perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection (APR) were included. The elect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sharabiany, Sarah, Brouwer, Thomas P. A., Kreisel, Saskia I., Musters, Gijsbert D., Blok, Robin D., Hompes, Roel, Tanis, Pieter J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9796945/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35712806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/codi.16224
_version_ 1784860605971169280
author Sharabiany, Sarah
Brouwer, Thomas P. A.
Kreisel, Saskia I.
Musters, Gijsbert D.
Blok, Robin D.
Hompes, Roel
Tanis, Pieter J.
author_facet Sharabiany, Sarah
Brouwer, Thomas P. A.
Kreisel, Saskia I.
Musters, Gijsbert D.
Blok, Robin D.
Hompes, Roel
Tanis, Pieter J.
author_sort Sharabiany, Sarah
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair. METHOD: All original studies (n ≥ 2 patients) reporting recurrence rates after perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection (APR) were included. The electronic database PubMed was last searched in December 2021. The primary outcome was recurrent perineal hernia. A weighted average of the logit proportions was determined by the use of the generic inverse variance method and random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies involving 172 patients were included. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 5.6 years and the indication for APR was predominantly cancer (99%, 170/172). The pooled percentage of recurrent perineal hernia was 39% (95% CI: 27%–52%) after biological mesh closure, 29% (95% CI: 21%–39%) after synthetic mesh closure, 37% (95% CI: 14%–67%) after tissue flap reconstruction only and 9% (95% CI: 1%–45%) after tissue flap reconstruction combined with mesh. CONCLUSION: Recurrence rates after mesh repair of perineal hernia are high, without a clear difference between biological and synthetic meshes. The addition of a tissue flap to mesh repair seemed to have a favourable outcome, which warrants further investigation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9796945
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97969452023-01-04 Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – A systematic review and meta‐analysis Sharabiany, Sarah Brouwer, Thomas P. A. Kreisel, Saskia I. Musters, Gijsbert D. Blok, Robin D. Hompes, Roel Tanis, Pieter J. Colorectal Dis Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair. METHOD: All original studies (n ≥ 2 patients) reporting recurrence rates after perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection (APR) were included. The electronic database PubMed was last searched in December 2021. The primary outcome was recurrent perineal hernia. A weighted average of the logit proportions was determined by the use of the generic inverse variance method and random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies involving 172 patients were included. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 5.6 years and the indication for APR was predominantly cancer (99%, 170/172). The pooled percentage of recurrent perineal hernia was 39% (95% CI: 27%–52%) after biological mesh closure, 29% (95% CI: 21%–39%) after synthetic mesh closure, 37% (95% CI: 14%–67%) after tissue flap reconstruction only and 9% (95% CI: 1%–45%) after tissue flap reconstruction combined with mesh. CONCLUSION: Recurrence rates after mesh repair of perineal hernia are high, without a clear difference between biological and synthetic meshes. The addition of a tissue flap to mesh repair seemed to have a favourable outcome, which warrants further investigation. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-07-06 2022-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9796945/ /pubmed/35712806 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/codi.16224 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Colorectal Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Sharabiany, Sarah
Brouwer, Thomas P. A.
Kreisel, Saskia I.
Musters, Gijsbert D.
Blok, Robin D.
Hompes, Roel
Tanis, Pieter J.
Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9796945/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35712806
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/codi.16224
work_keys_str_mv AT sharabianysarah meshflaporcombinedrepairofperinealherniaafterabdominoperinealresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT brouwerthomaspa meshflaporcombinedrepairofperinealherniaafterabdominoperinealresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kreiselsaskiai meshflaporcombinedrepairofperinealherniaafterabdominoperinealresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mustersgijsbertd meshflaporcombinedrepairofperinealherniaafterabdominoperinealresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT blokrobind meshflaporcombinedrepairofperinealherniaafterabdominoperinealresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hompesroel meshflaporcombinedrepairofperinealherniaafterabdominoperinealresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tanispieterj meshflaporcombinedrepairofperinealherniaafterabdominoperinealresectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis