The Comparison of Self-gripping Mesh and Sutured Mesh in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair

Prieto, Mikel; Gastaca, Mikel; Agirre, Leire; Colina, Alberto

doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000989

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 6 10 Five meta-analyses comparing self-gripping mesh with sutured mesh suggested that self-gripping mesh was associated with shorter operative time compared to sutured mesh. 11–15 All of these meta-analyses conducted only pairwise meta-analysis to compare efficacy of different types of mesh fixation methods. Moreover, they lack information required for size sample calculation (sample size included in pooling outcomes).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mesh fixation methods in open inguinal hernia repair: a protocol for network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials

Tian

et al. 2015

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRandomised clinical trials (RCTs) have been used to compare and evaluate different types of mesh fixation usually employed to repair open inguinal hernia. However, there is no consensus among surgeons on the best type of mesh fixation method to obtain optimal results. The choice often depends on surgeons’ personal preference. This study aims to compare different types of mesh fixation methods to repair open inguinal hernias and their role in the incidences of chronic groin pain, risk of hernia recurrence, complications, operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative pain, using Bayesian network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of RCTs.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be performed using PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and Chinese Journal Full-text Database, to include RCTs of different mesh fixation methods (or fixation vs no fixation) during open inguinal hernia repair. The risk of bias in included RCTs will be evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook V.5.1.0. Standard pairwise meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed to compare the efficacy of different mesh fixation methods.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval and patient consent are not required since this study is a meta-analysis based on published studies. The results of this network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.Protocol registration numberPROSPERO CRD42015023758.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%