A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the management of ventral hernia: biologic versus synthetic mesh.

Abstract

An abdominal wall hernia near the location of a prior surgical incision is referred to as an incisional hernia. A midline incisional hernia is the most prevalent form. The management of incisional hernia includes many options, from conservative to surgical. The surgeon might consider using a synthetic or biological mesh when discussing surgical options with patients. Our aim through this study is to comprehensively compare synthetic and biological mesh in terms of complication and infection rates for managing elective incisional hernia. This systematic review was designed and conducted using PRISMA guidelines. The literature was systematically searched in January 2023 using the following databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE. Among the terms used to aid the search were the following: incisional hernia, ventral hernia, ventral herniorrhaphy, biologic mesh, polypropylene mesh, absorbable mesh, permanent mesh, biomaterial mesh, biological mesh, and synthetic mesh. The review of the literature resulted in a total of 3115 publications. By applying our criteria, six articles were included in this study, with 949 participants. Our meta-analysis showed the overall complication incidence displaying a significant difference favouring the synthetic mesh group (IV = 1.25, 95% CI 1.11-1.42, P = 0.0002). The operation failure rate, defined as hernia recurrence, also significantly favoured synthetic mesh (IV = 2.42, 95% CI 1.66-3.52, P < 0.00001). In conclusion, the present study found that the synthetic mesh proved superior in overall complication rate and operation failure compared to biologic mesh. However, it had no significant differences in other complications.