Risk-benefit assessment of onlay and retrorectus mesh augmentation for incisional hernia prophylaxis: A secondary analysis from network meta-analysis.


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:
Aug 2021
Historique:
received: 27 01 2021
revised: 29 05 2021
accepted: 06 08 2021
pubmed: 11 8 2021
medline: 12 10 2021
entrez: 10 8 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Mesh augmentation has proved efficacious for the prevention of incisional hernia (IH). A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) identified onlay and retrorectus mesh (OM and RM) as the most effective therapeutic options, but the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and other complications require additional consideration. The NMA generated pooled risk differences (RD) for the benefits of reducing IH and the risk of SSI and composite seroma/hematoma (CSH) for use in Monte-Carlo data simulations with 1000 replications. Mean incremental risk-benefit ratios (IRBR), i.e., the ratio of incremental risk (or RD) and incremental benefit, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated with a probability of risk-benefits (PRB) across risk-benefit acceptability thresholds from the acceptability curves generated. The RDs of IH were 0.237 and 0.201 lower in OM and RM than primary suture closure, compared to 0.027 and -0.001 for SSI. IRBRs (95% CI) for SSI risk were -0.118 (-0.124, -0.112) and 0.006 (-0.002, 0.013) for OM and RM, respectively. PRBs were much higher in RM than OM, especially at low acceptability thresholds of 0.05 and 0.1. IRBRs (95% CI) for CSH were -0.388 (-0.395, -0.381) and -0.105 (-0.111, -0.100) for OM and RM, respectively. RM yielded a PRB of 0.87 at an acceptability threshold of 0.2, in contrast to OM, which did not. Overall, RM offered improved benefit in IH prophylaxis over the risk of complications relative to OM and appeared to be the preferred treatment option for this indication.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Mesh augmentation has proved efficacious for the prevention of incisional hernia (IH). A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) identified onlay and retrorectus mesh (OM and RM) as the most effective therapeutic options, but the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and other complications require additional consideration.
METHODS METHODS
The NMA generated pooled risk differences (RD) for the benefits of reducing IH and the risk of SSI and composite seroma/hematoma (CSH) for use in Monte-Carlo data simulations with 1000 replications. Mean incremental risk-benefit ratios (IRBR), i.e., the ratio of incremental risk (or RD) and incremental benefit, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated with a probability of risk-benefits (PRB) across risk-benefit acceptability thresholds from the acceptability curves generated.
RESULTS RESULTS
The RDs of IH were 0.237 and 0.201 lower in OM and RM than primary suture closure, compared to 0.027 and -0.001 for SSI. IRBRs (95% CI) for SSI risk were -0.118 (-0.124, -0.112) and 0.006 (-0.002, 0.013) for OM and RM, respectively. PRBs were much higher in RM than OM, especially at low acceptability thresholds of 0.05 and 0.1. IRBRs (95% CI) for CSH were -0.388 (-0.395, -0.381) and -0.105 (-0.111, -0.100) for OM and RM, respectively. RM yielded a PRB of 0.87 at an acceptability threshold of 0.2, in contrast to OM, which did not.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Overall, RM offered improved benefit in IH prophylaxis over the risk of complications relative to OM and appeared to be the preferred treatment option for this indication.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34375768
pii: S1743-9191(21)00187-4
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106053
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

106053

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Auteurs

Amarit Tansawet (A)

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Pawin Numthavaj (P)

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Electronic address: pawin.num@mahidol.ac.th.

Suphakarn Techapongsatorn (S)

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Gareth McKay (G)

Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.

John Attia (J)

Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hunter Medical Research Institute, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, New Lambton, NSW, Australia.

Oraluck Pattanaprateep (O)

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Ammarin Thakkinstian (A)

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH