Desarda versus Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Bernardo Fontel Pompeu, Eric Pasqualotto, Patrícia Marcolin, Lucas Monteiro Delgado, Ana Gabriela Ponte Farias, Beatriz D'Andrea Pigossi, Lucas Soares de Souza Pinto Guedes, Sergio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo
{"title":"Desarda versus Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Bernardo Fontel Pompeu, Eric Pasqualotto, Patrícia Marcolin, Lucas Monteiro Delgado, Ana Gabriela Ponte Farias, Beatriz D'Andrea Pigossi, Lucas Soares de Souza Pinto Guedes, Sergio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo","doi":"10.1002/wjs.12360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Lichtenstein technique is the gold standard for adult open inguinal hernia repair with mesh. The Desarda technique emerged in 2001 as a novel, promising non-mesh technique that has demonstrated low recurrence and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published until April 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and I<sup>2</sup> statistics, with p-values <0.10 and I<sup>2</sup>>25% considered significant. Statistical analysis was performed using the R software, version 4.1.2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen RCTs comprising 1756 patients were included, of whom 861 (49%) were submitted to Desarda and 895 (51%) were submitted to Lichtenstein. Desarda was associated with lower seroma rates (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.89; and p = 0.014), less operative time (MD -8.6 min; 95% CI -14.5 to -2.8; and p < 0.01), lower postoperative pain on day one (MD -1.3 VAS score; 95% CI -2.3 to -0.3; p < 0.01) or chronic pain (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.12-0.88; and p = 0.028), and faster return-to-work activities (MD -2.1 days; 95% CI -3.7 to -0.6; and p < 0.01). The recurrence rate was 1.4% for Desarda versus 2.1% for Lichtenstein, with no statistical difference between techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this meta-analysis, Desarda significantly decreases seroma operative time, postoperative pain on day 1, chronic pain, and return-to-work activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12360","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Lichtenstein technique is the gold standard for adult open inguinal hernia repair with mesh. The Desarda technique emerged in 2001 as a novel, promising non-mesh technique that has demonstrated low recurrence and postoperative complications.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published until April 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics, with p-values <0.10 and I2>25% considered significant. Statistical analysis was performed using the R software, version 4.1.2.

Results: Eighteen RCTs comprising 1756 patients were included, of whom 861 (49%) were submitted to Desarda and 895 (51%) were submitted to Lichtenstein. Desarda was associated with lower seroma rates (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.89; and p = 0.014), less operative time (MD -8.6 min; 95% CI -14.5 to -2.8; and p < 0.01), lower postoperative pain on day one (MD -1.3 VAS score; 95% CI -2.3 to -0.3; p < 0.01) or chronic pain (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.12-0.88; and p = 0.028), and faster return-to-work activities (MD -2.1 days; 95% CI -3.7 to -0.6; and p < 0.01). The recurrence rate was 1.4% for Desarda versus 2.1% for Lichtenstein, with no statistical difference between techniques.

Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, Desarda significantly decreases seroma operative time, postoperative pain on day 1, chronic pain, and return-to-work activities.

Desarda 与 Lichtenstein 腹股沟疝修补术:随机对照试验荟萃分析。
背景:Lichtenstein 技术是使用网片进行成人腹股沟疝修补术的金标准。2001 年出现的 Desarda 技术是一种新型、有前途的无网片技术,其复发率和术后并发症都很低:我们检索了 MEDLINE、Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials 和 Embase 中截至 2024 年 4 月发表的随机对照试验 (RCT)。采用随机效应模型对带有 95% 置信区间 (CI) 的比值比 (OR) 进行了汇总。异质性采用 Cochran's Q 检验和 I2 统计法进行评估,P 值 2>25% 为显著性。统计分析使用 4.1.2 版 R 软件进行:共纳入18项研究,1756名患者,其中861人(49%)接受了Desarda治疗,895人(51%)接受了Lichtenstein治疗。Desarda 与较低的血清肿发生率(OR 0.55;95% CI 0.35-0.89;p = 0.014)、较短的手术时间(MD -8.6分钟;95% CI -14.5--2.8;p 结论:在这项荟萃分析中,Desarda 能显著减少血清肿手术时间、术后第 1 天的疼痛、慢性疼痛和重返工作岗位的活动。
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
World Journal of Surgery
World Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
460
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.
×
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