Cargando…
Onlay Versus Sublay Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernias: A Systematic Review
Incisional hernias are a common problem following major abdominal surgery. There are numerous surgical techniques described in the existing English scientific literature with different planes for mesh placement. The current review aims to compare onlay versus sublay repair in managing incisional her...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cureus
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879281/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36713818 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.34156 |
_version_ | 1784878657247903744 |
---|---|
author | Pereira, Chirag Gururaj, Shankar |
author_facet | Pereira, Chirag Gururaj, Shankar |
author_sort | Pereira, Chirag |
collection | PubMed |
description | Incisional hernias are a common problem following major abdominal surgery. There are numerous surgical techniques described in the existing English scientific literature with different planes for mesh placement. The current review aims to compare onlay versus sublay repair in managing incisional hernias. A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Medline to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing onlay versus sublay mesh repair for incisional hernias. We identified six RCTs that included 986 patients, of whom 503 were in the onlay group and 485 were in the sublay group. There was no statistically significant difference in hernia recurrence between the onlay and sublay groups (odds ratio (OR): 1.3 (0.49-3.47), 95% confidence interval (CI), p=0.60). Seroma formation was significantly higher in the onlay group (OR: 2.85 (1.74-4.67), 95% CI, p<0.0001). There were 45 reported cases of surgical site infection (SSI). There was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 1.46 (0.44-4.84), 95% CI, p=0.54). Haematomas were reported in 11 cases, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 2.13 (0.56-8.19), 95% CI, p=0.27). Four RCTs reported the length of the hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference (MD): 0.53 (-0.16-1.22), 95% CI, p=0.13). We failed to draw conclusive clinical recommendations due to the variability in the included RCTs. We recommend well-structured, large-volume RCTs to better compare these two surgical techniques. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9879281 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Cureus |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98792812023-01-27 Onlay Versus Sublay Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernias: A Systematic Review Pereira, Chirag Gururaj, Shankar Cureus Gastroenterology Incisional hernias are a common problem following major abdominal surgery. There are numerous surgical techniques described in the existing English scientific literature with different planes for mesh placement. The current review aims to compare onlay versus sublay repair in managing incisional hernias. A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Medline to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing onlay versus sublay mesh repair for incisional hernias. We identified six RCTs that included 986 patients, of whom 503 were in the onlay group and 485 were in the sublay group. There was no statistically significant difference in hernia recurrence between the onlay and sublay groups (odds ratio (OR): 1.3 (0.49-3.47), 95% confidence interval (CI), p=0.60). Seroma formation was significantly higher in the onlay group (OR: 2.85 (1.74-4.67), 95% CI, p<0.0001). There were 45 reported cases of surgical site infection (SSI). There was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 1.46 (0.44-4.84), 95% CI, p=0.54). Haematomas were reported in 11 cases, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 2.13 (0.56-8.19), 95% CI, p=0.27). Four RCTs reported the length of the hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference (MD): 0.53 (-0.16-1.22), 95% CI, p=0.13). We failed to draw conclusive clinical recommendations due to the variability in the included RCTs. We recommend well-structured, large-volume RCTs to better compare these two surgical techniques. Cureus 2023-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9879281/ /pubmed/36713818 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.34156 Text en Copyright © 2023, Pereira et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Gastroenterology Pereira, Chirag Gururaj, Shankar Onlay Versus Sublay Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernias: A Systematic Review |
title | Onlay Versus Sublay Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernias: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Onlay Versus Sublay Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernias: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Onlay Versus Sublay Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernias: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Onlay Versus Sublay Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernias: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Onlay Versus Sublay Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernias: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | onlay versus sublay mesh repair for incisional hernias: a systematic review |
topic | Gastroenterology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879281/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36713818 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.34156 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pereirachirag onlayversussublaymeshrepairforincisionalherniasasystematicreview AT gururajshankar onlayversussublaymeshrepairforincisionalherniasasystematicreview |