Mesh Location in Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Julie L Holihan, Duyen H Nguyen, Mylan T Nguyen, Jiandi Mo, Lillian S Kao, Mike K Liang
Author Information
  1. Julie L Holihan: Department of General Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, 6431 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Julie.L.Holihan@uth.tmc.edu.
  2. Duyen H Nguyen: Department of General Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, 6431 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Dhnguyen.06@gmail.com.
  3. Mylan T Nguyen: Department of General Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, 6431 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Mylan.thi.nguyen@gmail.com.
  4. Jiandi Mo: Department of General Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, 6431 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Mojiandi@gmail.com.
  5. Lillian S Kao: Department of General Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, 6431 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Lillian.S.Kao@uth.tmc.edu.
  6. Mike K Liang: Department of General Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, 6431 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Mike.Liang@uth.tmc.edu.

Abstract

There is no consensus on the ideal location for mesh placement in open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). We aim to identify the mesh location associated with the lowest rate of recurrence following OVHR using a systematic review and meta-analysis. A search was performed for studies comparing at least two of four locations for mesh placement during OVHR (onlay, inlay, sublay, and underlay). Outcomes assessed were hernia recurrence and surgical site infection (SSI). Pairwise meta-analysis was performed to compare all direct treatment of mesh locations. A multiple treatment meta-analysis was performed to compare all mesh locations in the Bayesian framework. Sensitivity analyses were planned for the following: studies with a low risk of bias, incisional hernias, by hernia size, and by mesh type (synthetic or biologic). Twenty-one studies were identified (n = 5,891). Sublay placement of mesh was associated with the lowest risk for recurrence [OR 0.218 (95% CI 0.06-0.47)] and was the best of the four treatment modalities assessed [Prob (best) = 94.2%]. Sublay was also associated with the lowest risk for SSI [OR 0.449 (95% CI 0.12-1.16)] and was the best of the 4 treatment modalities assessed [Prob (best) = 77.3%]. When only assessing studies at low risk of bias, of incisional hernias, and using synthetic mesh, the probability that sublay had the lowest rate of recurrence and SSI was high. Sublay mesh location has lower complication rates than other mesh locations. While additional randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings, this network meta-analysis suggests the probability of sublay being the best location for mesh placement is high.

References

  1. Ann Surg. 2004 Oct;240(4):578-83; discussion 583-5 [PMID: 15383785]
  2. ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6 [PMID: 12956787]
  3. Hernia. 2010 Dec;14(6):575-82 [PMID: 20567989]
  4. Ann Surg. 2012 Mar;255(3):446-56 [PMID: 22330034]
  5. Hernia. 2014 Feb;18(1):31-8 [PMID: 23456151]
  6. J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Apr;212(4):496-502; discussion 502-4 [PMID: 21463777]
  7. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12 [PMID: 19631508]
  8. Hernia. 2002 Sep;6(3):144-7 [PMID: 12209305]
  9. Hernia. 2005 Dec;9(4):310-5 [PMID: 16044202]
  10. Surg Endosc. 1997 Jul;11(7):772-3 [PMID: 9214331]
  11. Allergy. 2009 May;64(5):669-77 [PMID: 19210357]
  12. Magy Seb. 2010 Oct;63(5):302-11 [PMID: 20965863]
  13. J Surg Res. 2007 Jun 1;140(1):6-11 [PMID: 17481980]
  14. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):857-64 [PMID: 19157778]
  15. Surg Endosc. 2015 Sep;29(9):2463-84 [PMID: 26139480]
  16. Hernia. 2015 Feb;19(1):89-101 [PMID: 25380560]
  17. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Nov;132(5):1295-304 [PMID: 24165612]
  18. Hernia. 2013 Oct;17(5):557-66 [PMID: 23400528]
  19. N Engl J Med. 2000 Aug 10;343(6):392-8 [PMID: 10933738]
  20. J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Dec;217(6):974-82 [PMID: 24051068]
  21. Hernia. 2013 Oct;17(5):647-55 [PMID: 23456147]
  22. Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):429-37 [PMID: 21669367]
  23. Surg Endosc. 2005 Dec;19(12):1556-60 [PMID: 16211441]
  24. BMJ. 2013 May 14;346:f2914 [PMID: 23674332]
  25. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Nov;130(5 Suppl 2):194S-202S [PMID: 23096971]
  26. J Surg Res. 2014 Dec;192(2):426-31 [PMID: 24980854]
  27. JAMA Surg. 2014 May;149(5):415-21 [PMID: 24554114]
  28. Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):417-28 [PMID: 21669366]
  29. Stat Methods Med Res. 1996 Dec;5(4):339-55 [PMID: 9004377]

Grants

  1. KL2 TR000370/NCATS NIH HHS
  2. UL1 TR000371/NCATS NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Hernia, Ventral
Herniorrhaphy
Humans
Recurrence
Surgical Mesh

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0meshbestlocationplacementlowestrecurrencemeta-analysisstudieslocationstreatmentrisk0herniaOVHRassociatedperformedsublayassessedSSI=Sublayrateusingfourcomparelowbiasincisionalherniassynthetic[OR95%CI]modalities[ProbprobabilityhighconsensusidealopenventralrepairaimidentifyfollowingsystematicreviewsearchcomparingleasttwoonlayinlayunderlayOutcomessurgicalsiteinfectionPairwisedirectmultipleBayesianframeworkSensitivityanalysesplannedfollowing:sizetypebiologicTwenty-oneidentifiedn589121806-047942%]also44912-1164773%]assessinglowercomplicationratesadditionalrandomizedcontrolledtrialsneededvalidatefindingsnetworksuggestsMeshLocationOpenVentralHerniaRepair:SystematicReviewNetworkMeta-analysis

Similar Articles

Cited By