Balloon dissection versus telescopic dissection during laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of balloon dissection and telescopic dissection in patients undergoing laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: A systematic review in accordance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted. A search of electronic information sources was conducted to identify all studies comparing the outcomes of balloon dissection and telescopic dissection in patients undergoing laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: A total of 936 patients from eight studies were included. The included population in both groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of operation time (MD: - 4.14 min, P = 0.05), conversion to another technique (RD: - 0.02, P = 0.29), recurrence (RD: - 0.00, P = 0.84), haematoma (OR: 1.34, P = 0.61), seroma (OR: 0.63, P = 0.56), surgical site infection (RD: 0.00, P = 1.00), urinary retention (OR: 0.92, P = 0.86), postoperative pain score on day 1 (MD: - 0.16, P = 0.69) and day 7 (MD: - 0.16, P = 0.61). Trial sequential analysis of randomised trials suggested that evidence for operative time and conversion to other technique is subject to type 1 and type 2 error. CONCLUSIONS: Balloon dissection and telescopic dissection during TEP inguinal hernia repair are comparable in terms of operative and postoperative outcomes. The available evidence for operative time and conversion to other technique is subject to type 1 and type 2 error. In presence of comparative clinical outcomes, the cost-effectiveness analysis in future studies may play an important role in determining the dissection technique of choice.

Should routine surgical wound drainage after ventral hernia repair be avoided? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate outcomes of drain use vs. no-drain use during ventral hernia repair. METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Studies comparing use of drains with no-drain during ventral hernia repair (primary or incisional) were included. Wound-related complications, operative time, need for mesh removal and early recurrence were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Eight studies reporting a total number of two thousand four hundred and sixty-eight patients (drain group = 1214; no-drain group = 1254) were included. The drain group had a significantly higher rate of surgical site infections (SSI) and longer operative time compared with the no-drain group [odds ratio (OR): 1.63, P = 0.01] and [mean difference (MD): 57.30, P = 0.007], respectively. Overall wound-related complications [OR: 0.95, P = 0.88], seroma formation [OR: 0.66, P = 0.24], haematoma occurrence [OR: 0.78, P = 0.61], mesh removal [OR: 1.32, P = 0.74] and early hernia recurrence [OR: 1.10, P = 0.94] did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The available evidence does not seem to support the routine use of surgical drains during primary or incisional ventral hernia repairs. They are associated with increased rates of SSIs and longer total operative time with no significant advantage in terms of wound-related complications.

Meta-analysis of the outcomes of Trans Rectus Sheath Extra-Peritoneal Procedure (TREPP) for inguinal hernia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of Trans Rectus Sheath Extra-Peritoneal Procedure (TREPP) in patients undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, electronic databases were searched to identify all studies reporting the outcomes of TREPP in patients undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair. The outcomes of interest included recurrence, chronic pain, haematoma, and wound infection. Proportion meta-analysis model was constructed to quantify the risk of postoperative complications and direct comparison meta-analysis model was constructed to compare the outcomes of TREPP and other open techniques. Random-effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: Seven studies enrolling 1891 patients undergoing TREPP were included. The mean operative time was 26 min (95% CI 15-36). Pooled analyses showed that TREPP was associated with 3.00% (95% CI 1.00-6.00%) risk of recurrence, 3.00% (95% CI 2.00-6.00%) risk of chronic pain, 8.00% (95% CI 0.00-20.00%) risk of haematoma, and 3.00% (95% CI 0.00-6.00%) risk of wound infection. The results remained consistent through subgroup analysis of patients with primary hernias and those with recurrent hernias. Analysis of a limited number of comparative studies showed no difference between TREPP and Lichtenstein technique in terms of recurrence (OR 1.57, P = 0.26) and chronic pain (OR 1.16, P = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence suggests that TREPP may be a promising technique for elective repair of inguinal hernias as indicated by low risks of recurrence, chronic pain, haematoma, and wound infection. The available evidence is limited to studies from a same country conducted by almost the same research group which may affect generalisability of the findings. Moreover, there is a lack of comparative evidence on outcomes of TREPP versus other techniques highlighting a need for high-quality randomised controlled trials for definite conclusions. Although the available evidence is not adequate for definite conclusions, the results of current study can be used for sample size calculation and power analysis in future trials.

Suture fixation versus self-gripping mesh for open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Morbidity following open inguinal hernia repair is mainly related to chronic pain. ProGrip™ is a self-gripping mesh which aims to reduce rates of chronic pain. The aim of this study is to perform an update meta-analysis to consolidate the non-superiority hypothesis in terms of postoperative pain and recurrence and perform a trial sequential analysis. METHODS: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) method. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pain and secondary outcomes were recurrence, operative time, wound complications, length of stay, re-operation rate, and cost. Trial sequential analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 14 studies included in the quantitative analysis with 3180 patients randomised to self-gripping mesh (1585) or standard mesh (1595). At all follow-up time points, there was no significant difference in the rates of chronic pain between the self-gripping and standard mesh (risk ratio, RR 1.10, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.83-1.46). There were no significant differences in recurrence rates (RR 1.13, CI 0.84-2.04). The mean operating time was significantly shorted in the ProGrip™ mesh group (MD - 7.32 min, CI - 10.21 to - 4.44). Trial sequential analysis suggests findings are conclusive. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis has confirmed no benefit of a ProGrip™ mesh when compared to a standard sutured mesh for open inguinal hernia repair in terms of chronic pain or recurrence. No further trials are required to address this clinical question.

Meta-analysis of the demographic and prognostic significance of right-sided versus left-sided acute diverticulitis.

AIM: The aim of this work was to compare demographic factors, outcomes and prognosis for right-sided versus left-sided acute colonic diverticulitis. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus and unpublished literature to identify all observational studies comparing demographic factors and outcomes of right-sided versus left-sided acute colonic diverticulitis (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020180075). We used the QUIPS tool to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: Analysis of 2933 patients from nine studies suggests that right-sided diverticulitis affects younger patients [mean difference (MD) -14.16 (-17.19, -11.14), P < 0.00001] and more male patients [odds ratio (OR) 1.33 (1.04, 1.71), P = 0.02] compared with left-sided diverticulitis. Smoking [OR 2.23 (1.50, 3.32), P < 0.0001], alcohol consumption [OR 1.85 (1.26, 2.71), P = 0.002] and comorbidity [OR 0.21 (0.15, 0.30), P < 0.00001] were more common in patients with right-sided diverticulitis. The risk of complicated diverticulitis was lower in the right-sided group [OR 0.21 (0.08, 0.55), P = 0.001]. More patients in the right-sided diverticulitis group had modified Hinchey Stage I disease [OR 10.21 (3.34, 31.22), P < 0.0001] while more patients in the left-sided group had Stage II [OR 0.19 (0.10, 0.38), P < 0.00001], Stage III [OR 0.08 (0.01, 0.54), P = 0.009] or Stage IV disease [OR 0.02 (0.00, 0.08), P < 0.00001]. Right-sided diverticulitis was associated with a lower risk of recurrence [OR 0.49 (0.25, 0.98), P = 0.04], failure of conservative management [OR 0.14 (0.04, 0.43), P = 0.0006], the need for emergency surgery [OR 0.13 (0.05, 0.36), P < 0.00001] and a shorter length of hospital stay [MD -1.70 (-3.08, -0.33), P = 0.02]. CONCLUSION: Right-sided acute diverticulitis predominantly affects younger male patients compared with left-sided disease and is associated with favourable outcomes as indicated by the lower risk of complications, failure of conservative management, need for emergency surgery, recurrence and shorter length of hospital stay. More studies are required to compare the postoperative outcomes in patients with right-sided and left-sided diverticulitis undergoing emergency surgery.

Comparison of extended right hemicolectomy, left hemicolectomy and segmental colectomy for splenic flexure colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The aim of this work was to compare the outcomes of extended right hemicolectomy (ERH), left hemicolectomy (LH) and segmental colectomy (SC) for the surgical management of splenic flexure tumours. METHOD: In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, a systematic review was performed to identify all studies comparing outcomes of ERH, LH and SC for the surgical management of splenic flexure tumours. Primary outcomes included anastomotic leakage and all postoperative complications. The secondary outcomes included operative time, R0 resection, number of harvested lymph nodes, > 12 harvested lymph nodes, severe complications, postoperative mortality, paralytic ileus, wound infection, pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal abscess, need for reoperation, length of hospital stay, 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival. The ROBINS-I tool and GRADE system were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence, respectively. RESULTS: Analysis of 956 patients from seven observational studies showed that ERH was associated with more paralytic ileus than LH (OR 2.74, P = 0.002) and SC (OR 6.67, P < 0.0001) and the operative time was shorter in SC than in ERH (mean difference 25.48, P < 0.0001) and LH (mean difference -17.94, P = 0.0002). There were no differences between ERH, LH and SC in terms of anastomotic leakage, postoperative complications, R0 resection, severe complications, postoperative mortality, wound infection, pancreatic fistula, intra-abdominal abscess, need for reoperation, length of hospital stay, > 12 harvested lymph nodes, 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence, limited to observational studies, suggests that there is no difference between ERH, LH and SC in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality, lymph node yield and cancer survival. Randomized controlled trials are required for definite conclusions.

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

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of open darn repair vs open mesh repair in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Six 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. CONCLUSIONS: Our 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.

Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of local vs. general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy.

Controversy exists regarding the best choice of anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy. We aimed to evaluate the peri-operative outcomes of local vs. general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy. We conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources and applied a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary searches adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits in each of the electronic databases. We defined peri-operative stroke, transient ischaemic attack, mortality and myocardial infarction as the primary outcome measures. We identified 12 randomised controlled trials and 21 observational studies reporting a total of 58,212 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy under local or general anaesthesia. Analysis of observational studies demonstrated that local anaesthesia was associated with a significantly lower incidence of stroke (odds ratio (OR (95% CI) 0.66 (0.55-0.80), p < 0.0001), transient ischaemic attack (0.52 (0.38-0.70), p < 0.0001), myocardial infarction (0.55 (0.41-0.75), p = 0.0002) and mortality (0.72 (0.56-0.94), p = 0.01) compared with general anaesthesia. Analysis of randomised controlled trials did not find a significant difference in the risk of stroke (0.92 (0.67-1.28), p = 0.63), transient ischaemic attack (2.20 (0.48-10.03), p = 0.31), myocardial infarction (1.25 (0.57-2.72), p = 0.58) or mortality (0.61 (0.35-1.05), p = 0.07) between local and general anaesthesia. On trial sequential analysis of the randomised trials, the Z-curve did not cross the α-spending boundaries or futility boundaries for stroke, mortality and transient ischaemic attack, suggesting that more trials are needed to reach conclusive results. Our meta-analysis of observational studies suggests that local anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy may be associated with lower peri-operative morbidity and mortality compared with general anaesthesia. Although randomised studies have not confirmed any advantage for local anaesthesia, this may be due to a lack of pooled statistical power in these trials.

Effect of mesalazine on recurrence of diverticulitis in patients with symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: he aim was to investigate the effect of mesalazine on the recurrence of diverticulitis in patients with symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and conducted a search of electronic information sources to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of mesalazine on the recurrence of diverticulitis in patients with SUDD. We used the Cochrane tool to assess the quality of included studies. Random effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Trial sequential analysis was performed to assess the possibility of type I or II errors and to compute the information size required for conclusive meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified six RCTs which enrolled a total of 1918 patients. There was no difference in the recurrence of diverticulitis between the mesalazine and placebo groups (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.96-1.50, P = 0.11). A low level of heterogeneity among the studies existed (I2  = 9%, P = 0.36). When the mesalazine dose was ≤ 2 g/day, there was no difference in recurrence rate between the two groups (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79-1.54, P = 0.58). When the mesalazine dose was > 2 g/day, the risk of recurrence was higher in the mesalazine group (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02-1.62, P = 0.04). The information size was calculated as 2461 patients. Trial sequential analysis showed that the meta-analysis was conclusive and the risk of type II error was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalazine does not prevent the recurrence of diverticulitis in patients with SUDD. Further studies are required to investigate the role of mesalazine as an adjunct to other medical agents in the prevention of diverticulitis in patients with SUDD.

Accuracy of co-morbidity data in patients undergoing abdominal wall hernia repair: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the baseline accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of routinely collected co-morbidity data in patients undergoing abdominal wall hernia repair. METHODS: All patients aged > 18 who underwent umbilical, para-umbilical, inguinal or incisional hernia repair between 1 January 2015 and 1 November 2016 were identified. All parts of the clinical notes were searched for co-morbidities by two authors independently. The following co-morbidities were considered: hypertension, ischaemic heart disease (IHD), diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypercholesterolemia, obesity and smoking. The co-morbidities data from clinical notes were compared with corresponding data in hospital episode statistics (HES) database to calculate accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of HES codes for co-morbidities. To assess the agreement between clinical notes and HES data, we also calculated Cohen's Kappa index value as a more robust measure of agreement. RESULTS: Overall, 346 patients comprising 3460 co-morbidity codes were included in the study. The overall accuracy of HES codes for all co-morbidities was 77% (Kappa: 0.13). When calculated separately for each co-morbidity, the accuracy was 72% (Kappa: 0.113) for hypertension, 82% (Kappa: 0.232) for IHD, 85% (Kappa: 0.203) for diabetes, 86% (Kappa: 0.287) for asthma, 91% (Kappa: 0.339) for COPD, 92% (Kappa: 0.374) for CVD, 94% (Kappa: 0.424) for CKD, 74% (Kappa: 0.074) for hypercholesterolemia, 71% (Kappa: 0.66) for obesity and 24% (Kappa: 0.005) for smoking. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of HES codes were 9, 100, 100, and 77%, respectively. The results were consistent when individual co-morbidities were analyzed separately. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that HES co-morbidity codes in patients undergoing abdominal wall hernia repair are specific with good positive predictive value; however, they have substandard accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value. The presence of a relatively large number of false negative or missed cases in HES database explains our findings. Better documentation of co-morbidities in admission clerking proforma may help to improve the quality of source documents for coders, which in turn may improve the accuracy of coding.

Laparoscopic versus open umbilical or paraumbilical hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of laparoscopic repair to open repair of umbilical and paraumbilical hernias. METHODS: We performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. The review protocol was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration Number: CRD42016052131). We conducted a search of electronic information sources, including MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing outcomes of laparoscopic repair to open repair of umbilical and paraumbilical hernias. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the risk of bias of RCTs and observational studies, respectively. Random effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: We identified three RCTs and seven retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 16,549 patients. Our analyses indicated that open repair was associated with a higher risk of wound infection [Odds ratio (OR) 2.35, 95% CI 1.23-4.48, P = 0.010], wound dehiscence (OR 4.99, 95% CI 1.12-22.28, P = 0.04) and recurrence (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.54-10.71, P = 0.005), longer length of hospital stay (MD 26.85, 95% CI 8.15-45.55, P = 0.005) and shorter operative time [Mean difference (MD) - 23.07, 95% CI - 36.78 to - 9.35, P = 0.0010] compared to laparoscopic repair. There was no difference in the risk of haematoma (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.22-18.73, P = 0.53) or seroma (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.19-2.32, P = 0.53) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence (randomised and non-randomised studies) suggests that laparoscopic repair of umbilical or paraumbilical hernias may be associated with a lower risk of wound infection, wound dehiscence and recurrence rate, shorter length of stay but longer operative time. Results from a limited number of RCTs showed no difference in recurrence rates. The quality of the best available evidence is moderate, and selection bias is the major concern due to non-randomised design in most of the available studies. Therefore, considering the level of available evidence, the most reliable approach for repair of umbilical or paraumbilical hernia should be based on surgeon's experience, clinical setting, patient's age and size, hernia defect size and anatomical characteristics. High quality RCTs are required.