{"title":"Nerve identification in open inguinal hernioplasty: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, Apurba Barman, Prabhas Ranjan Tripathy, Ankit Shettar","doi":"10.47717/turkjsurg.2022.5882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In open inguinal hernioplasty, three inguinal nerves are encountered in the surgical field. It is advisable to identify these nerves as careful dissection reduces the chances of debilitating post-operative inguinodynia. Recognizing nerves during surgery can be challenging. Limited surgical studies have reported on the identification rates of all nerves. This study aimed to calculate the pooled prevalence of each nerve from these studies.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Research Square. We selected articles that reported on the prevalence of all three nerves during surgery. A meta-analysis was performed on the data from eight studies. IVhet model from the software MetaXL was used for preparing the forest plot. Subgroup analysis was performed to understand the cause of heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The pooled prevalence rates for Ilioinguinal nerve (IIN), Iliohypogastric nerve (IHN), and genital branch of genitofemoral nerve (GB) were 84% (95% CI 67-97%), 71% (95% CI 51-89%) and 53% (95% CI 31-74%), respectively. On subgroup analysis, the identification rates were higher in single centre studies and studies with a single primary objective as nerve identification. The heterogeneity was significant in all pooled values, excluding the subgroup analysis of IHN identification rates in single-centre studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The pooled values indicate low identification rates for IHN and GB. Significant heterogeneity and large confidence intervals reduce the importance of these values as quality standards. Better results are observed in single-centre studies and studies which are focused on nerve identification.</p>","PeriodicalId":23374,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Surgery","volume":"38 4","pages":"315-326"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9979557/pdf/TJS-38-315.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47717/turkjsurg.2022.5882","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: In open inguinal hernioplasty, three inguinal nerves are encountered in the surgical field. It is advisable to identify these nerves as careful dissection reduces the chances of debilitating post-operative inguinodynia. Recognizing nerves during surgery can be challenging. Limited surgical studies have reported on the identification rates of all nerves. This study aimed to calculate the pooled prevalence of each nerve from these studies.
Material and methods: We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Research Square. We selected articles that reported on the prevalence of all three nerves during surgery. A meta-analysis was performed on the data from eight studies. IVhet model from the software MetaXL was used for preparing the forest plot. Subgroup analysis was performed to understand the cause of heterogeneity.
Results: The pooled prevalence rates for Ilioinguinal nerve (IIN), Iliohypogastric nerve (IHN), and genital branch of genitofemoral nerve (GB) were 84% (95% CI 67-97%), 71% (95% CI 51-89%) and 53% (95% CI 31-74%), respectively. On subgroup analysis, the identification rates were higher in single centre studies and studies with a single primary objective as nerve identification. The heterogeneity was significant in all pooled values, excluding the subgroup analysis of IHN identification rates in single-centre studies.
Conclusion: The pooled values indicate low identification rates for IHN and GB. Significant heterogeneity and large confidence intervals reduce the importance of these values as quality standards. Better results are observed in single-centre studies and studies which are focused on nerve identification.
目的:在开放式腹股沟疝成形术中,手术区域会遇到三条腹股沟神经。最好能识别这些神经,因为仔细剥离可减少术后腹股沟神经痛的几率。在手术中识别神经是一项挑战。有关所有神经识别率的手术研究报告有限。本研究旨在从这些研究中计算出每条神经的综合患病率:我们搜索了 PubMed、CENTRAL、CINAHL、ClinicalTrials.gov 和 Research Square。我们选择了报道手术中所有三种神经患病率的文章。我们对八项研究的数据进行了荟萃分析。在绘制森林图时使用了 MetaXL 软件中的 IVhet 模型。为了解异质性的原因,还进行了分组分析:腹股沟神经(IIN)、腹股沟神经(IHN)和股生殖神经生殖器支(GB)的汇总患病率分别为 84% (95% CI 67-97%)、71% (95% CI 51-89%) 和 53% (95% CI 31-74%)。在亚组分析中,单中心研究和以神经识别为主要目标的研究的识别率更高。除去单中心研究中IHN识别率的亚组分析,所有汇总值的异质性都很明显:结论:汇总值显示 IHN 和 GB 的识别率较低。结论:汇总值表明 IHN 和 GB 的识别率较低,显著的异质性和较大的置信区间降低了这些值作为质量标准的重要性。单中心研究和侧重于神经识别的研究结果更好。