Mesh fixation techniques for inguinal hernia repair: an overview of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Inguinal hernia repair using surgical mesh is a very common surgical operation. Currently, there is no consensus on the best technique for mesh fixation. We conducted an overview of existing systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials to compare the risk of chronic pain and recurrence following open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs using various mesh fixation techniques. METHODS: We searched major electronic databases in April 2020 and assessed the methodological quality of identified reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. RESULTS: We identified 20 SRs of variable quality assessing suture, self-gripping, glue, and mechanical fixation. Across reviews, the risk of chronic pain after open mesh repair was lower with glue fixation than with suture and comparable between self-gripping and suture. Incidence of chronic pain was lower with glue fixation than with mechanical fixation in laparoscopic repairs. There were no significant differences in recurrence rates between fixation techniques in open and laparoscopic mesh repairs, although fewer recurrences were reported with suture. Many reviews reported wide confidence intervals around summary estimates. Despite no clear evidence of differences among techniques, two network meta-analyses (one assessing open repairs and one laparoscopic repairs) ranked glue fixation as the best treatment for reducing pain and suture for reducing the risk of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Glue fixation may be effective in reducing the incidence of chronic pain without increasing the risk of recurrence. Future research should consider both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fixation techniques alongside the type of mesh and the size and location of the hernia defect.

Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults.

BACKGROUND: Faecal incontinence is a common symptom which causes significant distress and reduction in quality of life. Available treatment options for faecal incontinence include conservative treatments (biofeedback, pelvic floor muscle training, dietary manipulation or drug therapy) or surgical treatments (e.g. sphincter repair, post anal repair, neosphincter). Drug treatment is often given either alone or in combination with other treatment modalities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of drug therapy for the treatment of faecal incontinence. In particular, to assess the effects of individual drugs relative to placebo or other drugs, and to compare drug therapy with other treatment modalities. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register (January 2003) and the reference lists of relevant articles. Date of the most recent search: January 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Working independently, reviewers selected studies from the literature, assessed the methodological quality of each trial, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials were identified for inclusion in this review. Nine trials were of cross-over design. Seven trials included only people with faecal incontinence related to liquid stool (either chronic diarrhoea or following ileoanal pouch surgery). Three trials (total 58 participants) compared topical phenylephrine gel with placebo. Two trials (56 participants) compared loperamide with placebo. One trial (11 participants) compared loperamide oxide with placebo. One trial (15 participants) compared diphenoxylate plus atropine with placebo. One trial (17 participants) compared sodium valproate with placebo. One trial (30 participants) compared loperamide with codeine with diphenoxylate plus atropine. Two further trials (total 265 participants) assessed the use of lactulose in elderly people.No studies comparing drugs with other treatment modalities were identified. There was limited evidence that antidiarrhoeal drugs and drugs which enhance anal sphincter tone may reduce faecal incontinence in patients with liquid stools. However, the trials were small and of short duration. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The small number of trials identified for this review assessed several different drugs in a variety of patient populations. The focus of most of the included trials was on the treatment of diarrhoea, rather than faecal incontinence. There is little evidence to guide clinicians in the selection of drug therapies for faecal incontinence. Larger, well-designed controlled trials, which include clinically important outcome measures, are required.

Surgery for faecal incontinence in adults.

BACKGROUND: Faecal incontinence is a debilitating problem with significant medical, social and economic implications. Treatment options include conservative, non-operative interventions (e.g. pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, drugs) and surgical procedures. Surgery is used in selected groupsof people when the structural and functional defects in the pelvic floor muscles or the anal sphincter complex can be corrected mechanically. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of established surgical techniques for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults who do not have rectal prolapse. Our aims were firstly to compare surgical management with non-surgical management and secondly, to compare the various surgical techniques. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register, the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 1999), Medline (up to March 1999), Embase (1998 up to January 1999), Sigle (1980 up to December 1996), Biosis (1998 up to March 1999), SCI (1998 up to March 1999), ISTP (1982 up to March 1999) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We specifically hand searched the British Journal of Surgery from 1995 to 1998 and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum from 1995 to 1998. We also perused the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology, meeting 1999. Date of the most recent literature searches: March 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult faecal incontinence (other then surgery for rectal prolapse). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials. The three primary outcome measures were: change or deterioration in incontinence, failure to achieve full continence, and the presence of faecal urgency. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials were included with a total sample size of 110 participants. All trials excluded women with anal sphincter defects detected by endoanal ultrasound examination. No trial included a group managed non-surgically. Two trials (56 participants) compared three approaches to pelvic floor repair (anterior levatorplasty, postanal repair and their combination total pelvic floor repair). One trial (30 participants) evaluated adding plication of the anal sphincter to total pelvic floor repair. The fourth trial (24 participants) compared a neosphincter procedure with total pelvic floor repair. No differences in the primary outcomes were detected, but data were few and inconsistently reported. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The small number of relevant trials identified together with their small sample sizes and other methodological weaknesses severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical procedures. Larger rigorous trials are needed.

Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults.

BACKGROUND: Complete rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition, which affects both the very young and the elderly and can cause faecal incontinence. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying anal sphincter or pelvic floor defects in complete rectal prolapse poses the question about the choice of the best operation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of surgery on the treatment of rectal prolapse in adults. The following specific issues have been addressed: I. Whether surgical intervention is better than no treatment; II. Whether an abdominal approach to surgery is better then a perineal approach; III. Whether one method for performing rectopexy is better than another; IV. Whether laparoscopic access is better than open access for surgery; V. Whether resection should be included in the procedure. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register, the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 1999), Medline (up to March 1999), Embase (1998 up to January 1999), Sigle (1980 up to December 1996), Biosis (1998 up to March 1999), SCI (1998 up to March 1999), ISTP (1982 up to March 1999) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We hand searched the British Journal of Surgery 1995-8, and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 1995-8. We also searched the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology, meeting 1999. Date of the most recent searches: March 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of rectal prolapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials. The three primary outcome measures were number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, or residual mucosal prolapse or faecal incontinence. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials were included with a total of 264 participants. No trial included a group receiving no treatment, or anal encirclement, or Delormes procedure, or laparoscopic suture rectopexy, or laparoscopic resection rectopexy. One trial (20 participants) compared both perineal and abdominal resection rectopexy with pelvic floor repair; four trials (175 participants) compared different types of open rectopexy techniques; one trial (21 participants) compared laparoscopic with open mesh rectopexy; and two trials included comparisons between open resection rectopexy and rectopexy alone. In all comparisons data were few. There were no detectable differences in recurrent prolapse between abdominal and perineal approaches, although there was a suggestion that residual faecal incontinence was less common after abdominal surgery. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more post-operative constipation, although these findings were found in small numbers. There were too few data with which to compare laparoscopic with open surgery. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation, but again numbers were small. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The small number of relevant trials identified, and their small sample sizes together with other methodological weaknesses severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence with which to define optimum surgical treatment.