Is Shouldice the best NON-MESH inguinal hernia repair technique? A systematic review and network metanalysis of randomized controlled trials comparing Shouldice and Desarda.
Desarda
Groin Hernia
Inguinal hernia
Lichtenstein
Shouldice
Journal
International journal of surgery (London, England)
ISSN: 1743-9159
Titre abrégé: Int J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101228232
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
04
10
2018
revised:
20
11
2018
accepted:
05
01
2019
pubmed:
15
1
2019
medline:
23
4
2019
entrez:
15
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Current guidelines state that the Shouldice technique has lower recurrence rates than other suture repairs and therefore is strongly recommended in non-mesh inguinal hernia repair. Recently a new tissue repair technique has been proposed by Desarda and studied in trials against Lichtenstein technique. The present study was performed according to the PRISMA Statement for Network Meta-analysis and the AMSTAR 2 checklist. The method of network meta-analysis was chosen to evaluate randomized controlled trial published on tissue repair and comparing Lichtenstein respectively with Desarda and Shouldice techniques. The following parameters: operative time, recurrence, complications (general, intraoperative, Surgical Surgical Site Occurrences), VAS score on postoperative day 1, numbness, chronic pain and return to daily activities. Fourteen RCTs, involving 2791 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final analysis. The anchored indirect treatment comparison showed that Desarda's technique requires a significantly shorter operative time (MD: -12.9 min; 95% CI: -20.6 to -5.2) and has a quicker recovery (MD: -6.6 days; 95% CI: -11.7 to -1.4). Outcomes concerning intraoperative complications, early postoperative pain, seroma/hematoma, hydrocele and infection rates, recurrence, numbness and chronic pain were similar among the two techniques. Desarda's hernia repair can be a valuable alternative to Shouldice technique for the treatment of primary inguinal hernia repair if a non-mesh technique is chosen, because of its reproducibility and quicker postoperative recovery. We recommend performing well designed prospective studies comparing both techniques directly.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines state that the Shouldice technique has lower recurrence rates than other suture repairs and therefore is strongly recommended in non-mesh inguinal hernia repair. Recently a new tissue repair technique has been proposed by Desarda and studied in trials against Lichtenstein technique.
METHODS
METHODS
The present study was performed according to the PRISMA Statement for Network Meta-analysis and the AMSTAR 2 checklist. The method of network meta-analysis was chosen to evaluate randomized controlled trial published on tissue repair and comparing Lichtenstein respectively with Desarda and Shouldice techniques. The following parameters: operative time, recurrence, complications (general, intraoperative, Surgical Surgical Site Occurrences), VAS score on postoperative day 1, numbness, chronic pain and return to daily activities.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs, involving 2791 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final analysis. The anchored indirect treatment comparison showed that Desarda's technique requires a significantly shorter operative time (MD: -12.9 min; 95% CI: -20.6 to -5.2) and has a quicker recovery (MD: -6.6 days; 95% CI: -11.7 to -1.4). Outcomes concerning intraoperative complications, early postoperative pain, seroma/hematoma, hydrocele and infection rates, recurrence, numbness and chronic pain were similar among the two techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Desarda's hernia repair can be a valuable alternative to Shouldice technique for the treatment of primary inguinal hernia repair if a non-mesh technique is chosen, because of its reproducibility and quicker postoperative recovery. We recommend performing well designed prospective studies comparing both techniques directly.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30639473
pii: S1743-9191(19)30003-2
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.01.001
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
12-21Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.