Annular closure device for disc herniation: meta-analysis of clinical outcome and complications.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar intervertebral disc herniation is a common cause of lower back and leg pain, with surgical intervention (e.g. discectomy to remove the herniated disc) recommended after an appropriate period of conservative management, however the existing or increased breach of the annulus fibrosus persists with the potential of reherniation. Several prosthesis and techniques to reduce re-herniation have been proposed including implantation of an annular closure device (ACD) - Barricaid™ and an annular tissue repair system (AR) - Anulex-Xclose™. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assist surgeons determine a potential approach to reduce incidences of recurrent lumbar disc herniation and assess the current devices regarding their outcomes and complications. METHODS: Four electronic full-text databases were systematically searched through September 2017. Data including outcomes of annular closure device/annular repair were extracted. All results were pooled utilising meta-analysis with weighted mean difference and odds ratio as summary statistics. RESULTS: Four studies met inclusion criteria. Three studies reported the use of Barricaid (ACD) while one study reported the use of Anulex (AR). A total of 24 symptomatic reherniation were reported among 811 discectomies with ACD/AR as compared to 51 out of 645 in the control group (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.20,0.56; I2 = 0%; P < 0.0001). Durotomies were lower among the ACD/AR patients with only 3 reported cases compared to 7 in the control group (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.13, 2.23; I2 = 11%; P = 0.39). Similar outcomes for post-operative Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale were obtained when both groups were compared. CONCLUSION: Early results showed the use of Barricaid and Anulex devices are beneficial for short term outcomes demonstrating reduction in symptomatic disc reherniation with low post-operative complication rates. Long-term studies are required to further investigate the efficacy of such devices.

Evaluation of Open Rives-Stoppa and Lichtenstein Repair Methods for Bilateral Inguinal Hernias: A Single-Centre Comparative Analysis.

Aim The purpose of the study is to compare the two common open surgical methods for bilateral inguinal hernias: bilateral Lichtenstein repair and Rives-Stoppa repair. It evaluates their benefits, drawbacks, and outcomes to improve the management of bilateral inguinal hernias and enhance patient care and results. Background Abdominal wall hernias are prevalent in the surgical field, and they occur when intra-abdominal organs protrude through weakened or torn regions in the abdominal wall. The Lichtenstein repair, also known as the tension-free mesh repair, is one of the most widely used techniques that involves placing a synthetic mesh over the hernia defect to reinforce the abdominal wall. The Rives-Stoppa technique takes the posterior approach, which involves placing a large mesh in the preperitoneal space, which provides broad coverage of the potential hernia sites. Method This retrospective study included 86 male patients from the Department of General Surgery at Indus Health Network, Karachi, Pakistan. Data were collected up to three months post-operation for all open bilateral inguinal hernia repairs performed between January 2017 and April 2021. The patients were divided into two groups: group A underwent Lichtenstein repair, while group B underwent Rives-Stoppa repair. The procedures were performed by different surgeons and surgical trainees under direct supervision. Results Regarding post-operative complications (scrotal swelling, epididymo-orchitis, seroma formation, ipsilateral testicular swelling, surgical site infection, erectile dysfunction, wound dehiscence, fever, hydrocele, sensory abnormality, hernia recurrence in 3 months, post-operative pain in 14 days), there was no significant difference observed between the two groups. There were two recurrences within three months after Lichtenstein repair and one recurrence after Stoppa repair, but no statistical difference was demonstrated. Conclusion Statistically, both the Lichtenstein repair and the Rives-Stoppa repair demonstrated similar outcomes. However, the Rives-Stoppa repair offers distinct advantages for bilateral inguinal hernia repair, making it a preferable option in many cases as this approach utilises a single midline incision, simultaneously facilitating access to both hernial sites. This method ensures complete coverage of the myopectineal orifices bilaterally, addressing all potential hernia sites in the lower abdomen. These features collectively contribute to the technique's efficacy in managing bilateral hernias.