Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30689077›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2019

Open darn repair vs open mesh repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies.

D A Finch, V A Misra, S Hajibandeh

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Mesh versus non-mesh for emergency groin hernia repair.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

D A FinchDepartment of General Surgery, Pinderfields General Hospital, Wakefield, UK. davidfinch@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2964-9906
V A MisraDepartment of General Surgery, Royal Bolton Hospital, Bolton, UK.
S HajibandehDepartment of General Surgery, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the outcomes of open darn repair vs open mesh repair in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair.

methodsWe performed a systematic review and conducted a search of electronic information sources to identify all observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating outcomes of open darn repair vs open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Hernia recurrence was considered as the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures included surgical site infection (SSI), haematoma, seroma, neuralgia, urinary retention, length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activities or work, testicular atrophy, operative time and chronic pain. Random or fixed effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data.

resultsSix RCTs, enrolling 1480 patients with 1485 hernias, and 4 observational studies, enrolling 1564 patients with 1641 hernias, were included. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed no significant difference in terms of recurrence (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.01, P = 0.86), SSI (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46-1.49, P = 0.52), haematoma (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62-2.38, P = 0.57), seroma (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.65, P = 0.60), neuralgia (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29-3.73, P = 0.94), urinary retention (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.64-3.21, P = 0.38), length of hospital stay (MD 0.09, 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.46, P = 0.63), time to return to normal activities or work (MD 0.88, 95% CI - 0.90 to 2.66, P = 0.33), testicular atrophy (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.02, P = 1.00), and operative time (MD 2.69, 95% CI - 1.75 to 7.14, P = 0.62) between the darn repair and mesh repair groups. Meta-analysis of observational studies also showed no significant difference in terms of recurrence (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.02, P = 0.99), SSI (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.14-1.62, P = 0.23), haematoma (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.45-2.55, P = 0.89), seroma (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-2.27, P = 0.16), neuralgia (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.05-1.21, P = 0.08), urinary retention (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.20-11.96, P = 0.69), time to return to normal activities or work (MD 2.13, 95% CI - 2.18 to 6.44, P = 0.33), testicular atrophy (RD - 0.01, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.01, P = 0.49), and operative time (MD - 4.76, 95% CI - 13.23 to 3.71, P = 0.27) between the two groups. The evidence was inconclusive for chronic pain. The quality of available evidence was moderate.

conclusionsOur results suggest that open darn repair is comparable with open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Considering that consequences of mesh complications in inguinal hernia repair, albeit rare, can be significant, open darn repair provides an equally credible alternative to open mesh repair for inguinal hernias. Further studies are required to investigate patient-reported outcomes and to elicit a superior non-mesh technique.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSuture TechniquesDarn repairInguinal herniaMesh repair

Identifiers

PMID30689077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.