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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pereira, Chirag, Gururaj, Shankar
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