Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ventral hernia repair using minimally-invasive extended totally extraperitoneal repair versus intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair.

IF 0.6 Q4 SURGERY
Yegor Tryliskyy, Volodymyr Tyselskyi, Andrii Kebkalo, Nikita Ponomarov
{"title":"Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ventral hernia repair using minimally-invasive extended totally extraperitoneal repair versus intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair.","authors":"Yegor Tryliskyy,&nbsp;Volodymyr Tyselskyi,&nbsp;Andrii Kebkalo,&nbsp;Nikita Ponomarov","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0016.2728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis analysed was set up to compare totally extraperitoneal mesh repair (TEP) and intraperitoneal onlay mesh placement (IPOM) in patients undergoing minimally invasive ventral hernia mesh surgery (MIS-VHMS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature searches of three major databases were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies that compared two techniques of MIS-VHMS: TEP and IPOM. Primary outcome of interest was major complications post-operatively, defined as a composite outcome of surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), readmission to hospital, recurrence, reoperation or death. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative complications, duration of surgery, surgical site occurrence (SSO), SSOPI, postoperative ileus, post-operative pain. The risk of bias was assessed using Cohranes Risk of Bias tool 2 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa score for observational studies (OSs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five OSs and two RCTs al including total number of 553 patients were included. There was no difference in primary outcome (RD 0.00 [-0.05, 0.06], p=0.95), incidence of postoperative ileus. Operative time was longer in TEP (MD 40.10 [27.28, 52.91], p&lt;0.01). TEP was found to be associated with less postoperative pain at 24h and 7days after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both TEP and IPOM were detected to have equal safety profile and do not differ in SSO or SSOPI rates, incidence of postoperative ileus. TEP has longer operative time but provides better early postoperative pain outcomes. Further high-quality studies with long follow up evaluating recurrence and patient reported outcomes are needed. Comparison of other transabdominal and extraperitoneal MIS-VHMS techniques is another direction of future research. PROSPERO registration: CRD4202121099.</p>","PeriodicalId":43422,"journal":{"name":"Polish Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0016.2728","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis analysed was set up to compare totally extraperitoneal mesh repair (TEP) and intraperitoneal onlay mesh placement (IPOM) in patients undergoing minimally invasive ventral hernia mesh surgery (MIS-VHMS).

Methods: A systematic literature searches of three major databases were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies that compared two techniques of MIS-VHMS: TEP and IPOM. Primary outcome of interest was major complications post-operatively, defined as a composite outcome of surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), readmission to hospital, recurrence, reoperation or death. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative complications, duration of surgery, surgical site occurrence (SSO), SSOPI, postoperative ileus, post-operative pain. The risk of bias was assessed using Cohranes Risk of Bias tool 2 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa score for observational studies (OSs).

Results: Five OSs and two RCTs al including total number of 553 patients were included. There was no difference in primary outcome (RD 0.00 [-0.05, 0.06], p=0.95), incidence of postoperative ileus. Operative time was longer in TEP (MD 40.10 [27.28, 52.91], p<0.01). TEP was found to be associated with less postoperative pain at 24h and 7days after surgery.

Conclusions: Both TEP and IPOM were detected to have equal safety profile and do not differ in SSO or SSOPI rates, incidence of postoperative ileus. TEP has longer operative time but provides better early postoperative pain outcomes. Further high-quality studies with long follow up evaluating recurrence and patient reported outcomes are needed. Comparison of other transabdominal and extraperitoneal MIS-VHMS techniques is another direction of future research. PROSPERO registration: CRD4202121099.

系统回顾和荟萃分析比较采用微创扩展全腹膜外修补术和腹膜内补片修补术的腹疝修补术。
背景:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较微创腹疝补片手术(MIS-VHMS)患者的全腹膜外补片修复(TEP)和腹腔内补片放置(IPOM)。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南对三个主要数据库进行系统文献检索,以确定比较MIS-VHMS两种技术的研究:TEP和IPOM。主要结局是术后主要并发症,定义为手术部位发生需要手术干预(SSOPI)、再入院、复发、再手术或死亡的复合结局。次要结局为术中并发症、手术时间、手术部位发生(SSO)、SSOPI、术后肠梗阻、术后疼痛。对随机对照试验(rct)使用Cohranes偏倚风险评估工具2,对观察性研究(OSs)使用Newcastle-Ottawa评分评估偏倚风险。结果:共纳入5例os和2例rct,共553例患者。两组的主要转归(RD = 0.00 [-0.05, 0.06], p=0.95)、术后肠梗阻发生率无差异。TEP的手术时间更长(MD 40.10 [27.28, 52.91], p<0.01)。在术后24小时和7天,TEP与术后疼痛减轻有关。结论:TEP和IPOM均具有相同的安全性,并且在SSO或SSOPI发生率,术后肠梗阻发生率方面没有差异。TEP手术时间较长,但术后早期疼痛效果较好。需要进一步高质量的长期随访研究来评估复发和患者报告的结果。其他经腹和腹膜外MIS-VHMS技术的比较是未来研究的另一个方向。普洛斯彼罗注册:CRD4202121099。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信