Complex abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh in elderly: a propensity matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Complex abdominal wall reconstruction (CAWR) has become a common surgical procedure both in non-elderly and elderly patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to analyze the outcomes of the elderly compared to nonelderly undergoing CAWR using propensity score matching. METHODS: All patients who underwent CAWR using porcine-derived, non-crosslinked acellular dermal matrix (ADM) (Strattice™) between January 2014 and July 2017 were studied retrospectively. Propensity matched analysis was performed for risk adjustment in multivariable analysis and for one-to-one matching. The outcomes were analyzed for differences in postoperative complications, reoperations, mortality, hospital length of stay and adverse discharge disposition. RESULTS: One hundred-thirty-six patients were identified during the study period. Non-elderly (aged 18-64 years) constituted 70% (n = 95) and elderly (aged ≥ 65 years) comprised 30% of the overall patient population (n = 41). Seventy-three (56.7%) were females. After adjustment through the propensity score, which included 35 pairs, the surgical site infection (p = 1.000), wound necrosis (p = 1.000), the need for mechanical ventilation (p = 0.259), mortality (p = 0.083), reoperation rate (p = 0.141), hospital length of stay (p = 0.206), and discharge disposition (p = 0.795) were similar. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients undergoing CAWR with biological mesh have comparable outcomes with non-elderly patients when using propensity matching score.

A novel tool to evaluate bias in literature on use of biologic mesh in abdominal wall hernia repair.

PURPOSE: Biologic meshes are being increasingly used for abdominal hernia repair in high-risk patients or patients with a previous history of wound infection, due to their infection-resistant properties. Several studies have been carried out to assess whether biologic mesh is superior to synthetic mesh, as well as to establish guidelines for their use. Unfortunately, most of these studies were not rigorously designed and were vulnerable to different types of bias. The systematic reviews that have been published so far on this topic contain the same biases and limitations of the primary articles that are analyzed. The lack of a literature review on the bias on the use of biological mesh prompted us to conduct the literature search, assessment and plan this article. METHODS: We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases of systematic reviews on biologic mesh for ventral hernia repair. The literature review was conducted using the Population, Intervention, Comparisons, Outcomes and Design approach. We identified 40 studies that matched the stringent criteria we had set. We then created a 13-point instrument to assess for bias and applied it on the primary studies that we intended to analyze. RESULTS: Most primary studies are case series or case reports of patients undergoing abdominal hernia repair with biologic mesh, without any comparison group, and the inclusion of cases was only specified to be consecutive in 6 out of 40 cases. In terms of assessing outcomes, in none of the 40 articles were the outcome assessors blinded to the intervention or exposure status of participants. CONCLUSION: The instrument that we created could allow to assess the risk of bias in different kind of studies. Our assessment of the studies based on the criteria that we had set up in the instrument clearly identified that further research needs to be done due to the lack of unbiased studies regarding the use of biologic meshes for abdominal hernia repair.

Single-therapy androgen suppression in men with advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists with orchiectomy or diethylstilbestrol, and to compare antiandrogens with any of these three alternatives. DATA SOURCES: A search of the MEDLINE, Cancerlit, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from 1966 to March 1998 and Current Contents to 24 August 1998 for articles comparing the outcomes of the specified treatments. The search was limited to studies on prostatic neoplasms in humans. Total yield was 1477 studies. STUDY SELECTION: Reports of efficacy outcomes were limited to randomized, controlled trials. Twenty-four trials involving more than 6600 patients, phase II studies that reported on withdrawals from therapy (the most reliable indicator of adverse effects), and all studies reporting on quality of life were abstracted. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers abstracted each article by following a prospectively designed protocol. The meta-analysis combined data on 2-year overall survival by using a random-effects model and; reported results as a hazard ratio relative to orchiectomy. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten trials of LHRH agonists involving 1908 patients reported no significant difference in overall survival. The hazard ratio showed LHRH agonists to be essentially equivalent to orchiectomy (hazard ratio, 1.1262 [corrected] [95% CI, 0.915 to 1.386]). There was no evidence of difference in overall survival among the LHRH agonists, although CIs were wider for leuprolide (hazard ratio, 1.0994 [CI, 0.207 to 5.835]) and buserelin (hazard ratio, 1.1315 [CI, 0.533 to 2.404]) than for goserelin (hazard ratio, 1.1172 [CI, 0.898 to 1.390]). Evidence from 8 trials involving 2717 patients suggests that nonsteroidal antiandrogens were associated with lower overall survival. The CI for the hazard ratio approached statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.2158 [CI, 0.988 to 1.496]). Treatment withdrawals were less frequent with LHRH agonists (0% to 4%) than with nonsteroidal antiandrogens (4% to 10%). CONCLUSIONS: Survival after therapy with an LHRH agonist was equivalent to that after orchiectomy. No evidence shows a difference in effectiveness among the LHRH agonists. Survival rates may be somewhat lower if a nonsteroidal antiandrogen is used as monotherapy.

Relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methods of androgen suppression in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: With 184,500 new cases and 39,200 deaths anticipated in 1998, prostate cancer is second only to lung cancer in cancer mortality for men. This report is a systematic review of the evidence from randomized controlled trials on the relative effectiveness of alternative strategies for androgen suppression as treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Three key issues are addressed: (1) the relative effectiveness of the available methods for monotherapy (orchiectomy, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonists, and antiandrogens), (2) the effectiveness of combined androgen blockade compared to monotherapy, and (3) the effectiveness of immediate androgen suppression compared to androgen suppression deferred until clinical progression. Outcomes of interest are overall, cancer-specific, and progression-free survival; time to treatment failure; adverse effects; and quality of life. Two supplementary analyses were conducted for each key question: (1) meta-analysis of overall survival at 2 years (questions 1 and 2) and 5 years (questions 2 and 3), and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis. SEARCH STRATEGY: The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and EMBASE databases were searched from 1966 to March 1998, and Current Contents to August 24, 1998, for the terms: leuprolide (Lupron); goserelin (Zoladex); buserelin (Suprefact); flutamide (Eulexin); nilutamide (Anandron, Nilandron); bicalutamide (Casodex); cyproterone acetate (Androcur); diethylstilbestrol (DES); and orchiectomy (castration, orchidectomy). The search was then limited to human studies indexed under the MeSH term "prostatic neoplasms" and by the UK Cochrane Center search strategy for randomized controlled trials. Total yield was 1,477 references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We Reports of efficacy outcomes were limited to randomized controlled trials. Phase II studies that reported on withdrawals from therapy and all studies reporting on quality of life were also included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The systematic review used a prospectively designed protocol conducted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. The meta-analysis combined data on overall survival using a random effects model. The cost-effectiveness analysis used a decision analysis model of advanced prostate cancer with health states and transitions derived from the literature and estimates of effectiveness derived from the meta-analysis. The cost-effectiveness analysis is conducted from a societal perspective, consistent with the guidelines of the U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. MAIN RESULTS: Survival after treatment with an LHRH agonist is equivalent to survival after orchiectomy. The available LHRH agonists are equally effective, and no LHRH agonist is superior to the other when adverse effects are considered. Survival may be somewhat lower with use of a nonsteroidal antiandrogen. There is no statistically significant difference in survival at 2 years between patients treated with combined androgen blockade or monotherapy. Meta-analysis of the limited data available shows a statistically significant difference in survival at 5 years that favors combined androgen blockade. However, the magnitude of this difference is of questionable clinical significance. For the subgroup of patients with good prognosis, there is no statistically significant difference in survival. Adverse effects leading to withdrawal from therapy occurred more often with combined androgen blockade. No evidence is yet available from randomized controlled trials of androgen suppression initiated at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise after definitive therapy for clinically localized disease. For patients who are newly diagnosed with locally advanced or asymptomatic metastatic disease, the evidence is insufficient to determine whether primary androgen suppression initiated at diagnosis improves outcomes. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)