Abstract
Background
Mesh repair of umbilical hernia has been associated with a reduced recurrence rate compared with suture closure, but potentially at the expense of increased postoperative complications and chronic pain. The objective of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to examine the outcomes after elective open mesh and suture repair for umbilical hernia in adults.
Methods
A literature search was conducted to identify studies presenting original data on elective open mesh and suture repair of umbilical hernia. The primary outcome was hernia recurrence. Secondary outcomes included surgical‐site infection (SSI), seroma, haematoma and chronic pain. Meta‐analyses were undertaken.
Results
The search resulted in 5353 hits and led to 14 studies being included (6 RCTs and 8 observational studies) describing a total of 2361 patients. Compared with suture, mesh repair was associated with a lower risk of recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 0·48, 95 per cent c.i. 0·30 to 0·77), with number needed to treat 19 (95 per cent c.i. 14 to 31). Mesh repair was associated with a higher risk of seroma (RR 2·37, 1·45 to 3·87), with number needed to harm 30 (17 to 86). There was no significant difference in the risk of SSI, haematoma or chronic pain.
Conclusion
The use of mesh in elective repair of umbilical hernia reduced the risk of recurrence compared with suture closure without altering the risk of chronic pain.
Mesh reduced the risk of recurrence compared with suture closure in elective repair of umbilical hernia, with no difference in the risk of chronic pain.
Mesh repair justified
Antecedentes
La reparación con malla de la hernia umbilical se ha asociado con una tasa menor de recidivas en comparación con el cierre con suturas, pero potencialmente a expensas de un aumento de complicaciones postoperatorias y dolor crónico. El objetivo de esta revisión sistemática y metaanálisis fue examinar los resultados después de reparación abierta electiva con malla o suturas para la reparación de una hernia umbilical en adultos.
Métodos
Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda en la literatura para identificar estudios que presentaban datos originales sobre la reparación abierta electiva con malla y sutura de la hernia umbilical. El resultado primario fue la recidiva herniaria. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron la infección del sitio quirúrgico (surgical site infection, SSI), seroma, hematoma y dolor crónico. Se realizaron metaanálisis.
Resultados
En la búsqueda identificaron 5.353 documentos, incluyéndose 14 estudios (6 ensayos clínicos aleatorizados, 8 estudios observacionales) que presentaban datos de un total de 2.361 pacientes. En comparación con la sutura, la reparación con malla se asoció con un menor riesgo de recidiva (tasa de riesgo, risk ratio, RR 0,48, i.c. del 95% 0,30 a 0,77) y número necesario para tratar de 19 (i.c. del 95% 14 a 31). La reparación con malla se asoció con un mayor riesgo de seroma (RR 2,37, i.c. del 95% 1,45 a 3,87) y número necesario para provocar daño de 30 (i.c. del 95% 17 a 86). No hubo diferencia significativa en el riesgo de SSI, hematoma o dolor crónico.
Conclusión
El uso de malla en la reparación electiva de la hernia umbilical redujo el riesgo de recidiva en comparación con el cierre con sutura, sin modificar el riesgo de dolor crónico.
Introduction
Repair of umbilical hernia is the second most frequent hernia operation in the Western world, exceeded only by groin hernia repair1. Suture repair has been challenged by a growing volume of evidence supporting the use of mesh, as mesh has been associated with reduced recurrence rates compared with sutures alone2, 3. Suture repair is used widely for umbilical hernia defects smaller than 2 cm, but when the defects are larger than 4 cm this technique has been associated with recurrence rates of up to 54 per cent4. In a Danish cohort2, 69 per cent of 989 patients with a primary umbilical hernia had elective suture repair over a 3‐year period. The study found significantly decreased recurrence rates following mesh versus suture repair in ventral hernias of up to 1 cm and in those of more than 1 to 2 cm.
The relative complexity and prolonged duration of surgery associated with the use of mesh for repair of smaller umbilical hernias may explain this discrepancy between research findings and surgeons' choice of repair. It has also been suggested2, 3, 5 that mesh is related to an increased risk of complications, including surgical‐site infection (SSI), seroma, haematoma and chronic pain. It is unclear whether these complications could offset the benefits of mesh repair compared with sutures alone.
A review6 that included both RCTs and observational studies, published in 2014, looked at elective and emergency repair of primary epigastric and umbilical hernias. Since then, several observational studies and RCTs concerning umbilical hernia have been reported. The objective of the present study was to compare five outcomes following open mesh and suture repair of umbilical hernia in adults. The primary outcome was hernia recurrence; secondary outcomes were SSI, seroma, haematoma and chronic pain.
Methods
This systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement7.
Eligibility criteria
Original studies reporting recurrence rate and additional outcomes after elective primary (non‐recurrent) umbilical hernia repair by mesh or suture in adults were eligible for inclusion. From studies reporting additional repair methods other than open mesh or suture repair, for example laparoscopic repair, only data regarding open mesh and suture repair were extracted. Studies reporting on the treatment of other hernias, such as epigastric hernia, were included only if data regarding umbilical hernia were distinguishable from those relating to other hernia types. Paraumbilical hernia was defined as umbilical hernia8.
To reduce heterogeneity, studies on patients with cirrhosis, those undergoing concomitant surgery at the time of hernia repair, emergency repair, surgery in contaminated fields, non‐comparative studies, or those involving recurrent hernias were excluded. Studies published in a language other than English, those with no available full‐text article, and those reporting decision on repair technique based on a threshold defect size were also excluded.
Search strategy
A literature search was conducted of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from the date of establishment of the databases to 6 August 2019. Search terms used were ((hernia, ventral[MeSH Terms]) OR (umbilical hernia) OR (primary ventral hernia) OR (epigastric hernia)) AND ((mesh) OR (suture)). One author screened titles and abstracts. Two authors reviewed full‐text articles independently.
Data extraction
The primary outcome was hernia recurrence. Secondary outcomes were SSI, seroma, haematoma and chronic pain. Information extracted from each study included year of publication, type of study, number of patients, type of hernia, sex, age, BMI, diabetes mellitus, ASA grade, hernia defect size, technical information, duration of surgery, and length and type of follow‐up.
Assessment of bias
Two authors evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies independently. In each cohort study, risk of bias was assessed by using the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS)9. The score, from 0 (lowest) to 9 (highest), was based on the quality of information accessible on three broad categories: selection, comparability and outcomes.
The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessment of the risk of bias10 was applied to the RCTs. Each study was assessed for low, high or unclear risk of bias in five categories: selection, performance, detection, attrition and reporting bias.
Statistical analysis
Where studies reported outcomes after more than one type of open mesh or suture technique, data were pooled into one mesh and one suture group respectively. Meta‐analyses were performed on pooled and separated data from RCTs and cohort studies respectively. Heterogeneity across study results was estimated by the Cochrane approach (I 2) and interpreted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook10. The results of meta‐analyses are presented as forest plots, including overall risk ratios (RRs) with confidence intervals on hernia recurrence, SSI, seroma and haematoma. I 2 estimates are presented in each forest plot. Estimation of the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) was performed by taking the inverse of the absolute risk reduction formula11. Results for chronic pain were compared between the repair groups. No statistical test was applied for chronic pain data, as these were too heterogeneous across the studies. Statistical software used was Review Manager version 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark).
Results
The literature search yielded 5353 unique hits (Fig. 1). After initial screening of titles and abstracts, 42 studies were assessed for inclusion eligibility. In total, 14 studies1, 3, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 were included, comprising six RCTs, one prospective cohort study and seven retrospective cohort studies, involving a total of 2361 patients. Characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. Two studies1, 3 explicitly defined umbilical hernia according to European Hernia Society definitions8.
Figure 1.
PRISMA diagram for the review
Table 1.
Characteristics of studies included in the meta‐analysis
| Outcome variable reported | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | NOS score | Type of study | Mesh | Suture | Recurrence | SSI | Seroma | Haematoma | Pain | Follow‐up (years)* |
| Arroyo et al.15 (2001) | RCT | 100 | 100 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 5·3 (1·8–6·7)† | |
| Asolati et al.22 (2006) | 4 | Cohort | 132 | 97 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 0·5§ |
| Berger et al.12 (2014) | 7 | Cohort | 126 | 266 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | 5 (0·1–11·9) |
| Dalenbäck et al.18 (2013) | 6 | Cohort | 21 | 111 | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | 5·8 (2·3–11·8)† |
| Farrow et al.20 (2008) | 8 | Cohort | 65 | 87 | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | 1·7 (0·1–4·8)† |
| Halm et al.19 (2005) | 7 | Cohort | 12 | 98 | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | 2·7 (0·8–5·6) |
| Kaufmann et al.3 (2018) | RCT | 146 | 138 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 2·1 (0–7·3) | |
| Lal et al.16 (2012) | RCT | 32 | 30 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | n.a. | |
| Polat et al.17 (2005) | RCT | 32 | 18 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 1·8 (0·5–3·7)† | |
| Sadiq and Khurshid21 (2013) | RCT | 30 | 30 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 1·0§ | |
| Sanjay et al.13 (2005) | 6 | Cohort | 39 | 61 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 4·5 (1–8) |
| Tunio14 (2017) | RCT | 43 | 43 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 3·0§ | |
| Venclauskas et al.5 (2017) | 7 | Cohort | 52 | 146 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4·7 (1·8–12·6) |
| Winsnes et al.1 (2016) | 7 | Cohort | 184 | 122 | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | 6·8 (0·9–9·7) |
Values are median (range) unless indicated otherwise;
values are mean (range);
values are maximum follow‐up. NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa scale; SSI, surgical‐site infection; n.a., not available.
Study characteristics
Demographic and clinical data are shown in Table 2. One cohort study12 found that patients undergoing mesh repair were more likely to have a larger hernia defect (mean(s.d.) 4·7(0·3) cm versus 2·0(0·2) cm in those undergoing sutured repair; P < 0·010) and higher BMI (mean(s.d.) 32·5(0·4) versus 30·5(0·3) kg/m2 respectively; P < 0·010).
Table 2.
Demographic and clinical data
| BMI (kg/m2) | % of men | Diabetes mellitus (%) | Age (years) | ASA grade III–IV (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | Fascial defect size (cm) | Suture | Mesh | Suture | Mesh | Suture | Mesh | Suture | Mesh | Suture | Mesh |
| Arroyo et al.15 | > 0 | n.a. | 40·0 | 42·0 | n.a. | 56·0 (14–79)‡ | 57·0 (14–79)‡ | 15·0 | 12·0 | ||
| Asolati et al.22 | ≥ 1 | n.a. | 96·1 | n.a. | 56 (30–85)‡ | n.a. | |||||
| Berger et al.12 | 0–4 | 30·5 (0·3)* | 32·5 (0·4)* | 96·7¶ | 100¶ | 7·9¶ | 20·6¶ | 56·6 (1·1)*, ¶ | 57·1 (0·9)*, ¶ | 63·3¶ | 65·6¶ |
| Dalenbäck et al.18 | 1–4 | n.a. | 64·8 | n.a. | 49·0* | n.a. | |||||
| Farrow et al.20 | 3·1–28 cm2 | 32·1 (20–49)‡ | 98·0 | n.a. | 55·2 (26–84)‡ | n.a. | |||||
| Halm et al.19 | n.a. | 27** | 66·4 | n.a. | 56·7 (21–85)‡ | n.a. | |||||
| Kaufmann et al.3 | 1–4 | 28 (19–44)† | 28 (19–59)† | 81·9 | 83·6 | 9·4 | 8·9 | 52·0 (20–74)† | 55·0 (25–77)† | 2·9 | 5·5 |
| Lal et al.16 | 4–7 | n.a. | 8 | n.a. | (25–70) | n.a. | |||||
| Polat et al.17 | 0–4 | n.a. | 26 | n.a. | 49·7 (27–82)‡ | 53·7 (33–72)‡, § | 11 | 19 | |||
| Sadiq and Khurshid21 | > 3 | n.a. (> 30 excluded) | 7 | 10 | n.a. | (30–45) | (30–50) | n.a. | |||
| Sanjay et al.13 | 0–5 | 31·2 (23–45)† | 33·3 (24–59)† | 68·0 | n.a. | 53·0 (19–90)† | 54·0 (30–81)† | 13 | 8 | ||
| Tunio14 | > 3 | n.a. | 21 | 0 | 45·5 (21–70)† | n.a. | |||||
| Venclauskas et al.5 | 0·3–9 | 30·4 (7·0)* | 36·0 (6·9)* | 33·6 | 46 | 5·5 | 8 | 54·5 (16·8)* | 54·9 (12·7)* | n.a. | |
| Winsnes et al.1 | 1–2 | 26 (20–36)† | 29 (21–39)† | 65·6 | 70·1 | 8·2 | 13·0 | 48·0 (18–84)† | 50·0 (20–88)† | 4·9 | 11·4 |
Values are
mean(s.d.),
median (range) or
mean (range);
mean for onlay mesh group.
Only demographic and clinical data based on case‐matching were available.
Only average data were available. n.a., Not available.
Technical elements and duration of surgery are shown in Table 3. Techniques varied considerably across the included studies. In two studies13, 14 a single surgeon performed all the procedures. One study3 invited surgeons to specific pretrial training sessions. A longer duration of surgery for mesh compared with suture repair was reported by five studies3, 5, 15, 16, 17, and four12, 13, 15, 17 reported administration of preoperative antibiotics in all patients.
Table 3.
Intraoperative data
| Suture | Mesh | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | Technique | Material | Duration of surgery (min) | Technique¶ | Material¶ | Duration of surgery (min) |
| Arroyo et al.15 | Interrupted | Non‐absorbable polyester | 38·0* | Preperitoneal placement Defect ≤ 3 cm: plug Defect > 3 cm: flat sheet | Polypropylene, fixed with nylon 0 sutures | 45·0* |
| Asolati et al.22 | – | – | – | Onlay, inlay or combined | Poliglecaprone 25 and polypropylene filament (combined) | – |
| Berger et al.12 ¶ | Interrupted transverse closure | Non‐absorbable | – | Underlay (preperitoneal), 3‐cm overlap | Polypropylene, fixed with permanent sutures | – |
| Dalenbäck et al.18 | Mayo repair or single or double, interrupted or continuous | Non‐absorbable monofilament | – | Onlay, plug, intraperitoneal or combined | Polypropylene or expanded polytetrafluoroethylene | – |
| Farrow et al.20 | – | – | – | – | 94% polypropylene; 5% polytetrafluoroethylene | – |
| Halm et al.19 | – | – | – | Preperitoneal | – | – |
| Kaufmann et al.3 | Interrupted or continuous transverse closure | Polypropylene 0/0 | 33·0 (10–95)† | Preperitoneal | Polypropylene, fixed with individual monofilament sutures | 44·0 (20–122)† |
| Lal et al.16 | Interrupted vertical closure | Polypropylene | (45–85) | Onlay | Polypropylene | (45–85) |
| Polat et al.17 | Mayo repair | – | 34·4 (20–50)‡ | Combined (PHS) or onlay mesh | Polypropylene | 40·5 (20–60)‡, ** |
| Sadiq and Khurshid21 | Mayo repair or interrupted | Polypropylene | – | Onlay | – | – |
| Sanjay et al.13 | Mayo repair or interrupted | – | – | Flat mesh or plug | Polypropylene | – |
| Tunio14 | Mayo repair | – | – | Onlay | Polypropylene, fixed with interrupted sutures | – |
| Venclauskas et al.5 | Keel | Slowly absorbable monofilament | 68·6(34·1)* | Onlay or sublay | Polypropylene | 107·9(55·7)* |
| Winsnes et al.1 | Interrupted or shoelace | – | – | Sublay, onlay, intraperitoneal or plug | Polypropylene | – |
Values are
mean(s.d.),
median (range) or
mean (range).
Onlay mesh group;
includes only mesh used in the open approach;
combined (PHS), Prolene Hernia System.
Follow‐up was assessed by clinical examination in all RCTs, and by the last clinical examination noted in medical records in all cohort studies. In some studies, additional follow‐up was accomplished by questionnaires sent to patients to identify recurrence13, 18, long‐term infection13 and pain18, or by telephone contact to identify chronic pain5. In three cohort studies1, 5, 19, patients received an invitation for an extra physical examination. Evidence of recurrence was based on physical examination, imaging (ultrasonography or CT) or reoperation1, 3, 5, 12, 20.
Bias
NOS scores for the cohort studies are shown in Table 1. Only a single RCT3 was considered to exhibit a low risk of bias. The other RCTs14, 15, 16, 17, 21 were assessed as having an unclear to high risk of bias, as no descriptions of randomization procedures, blinding or loss to follow‐up were accessible. According to the Cochrane interpretation of the I 2 estimate10, heterogeneity across results for recurrence and SSI from the pooled data analyses was considerable to moderate, whereas heterogeneity across results for seroma and haematoma was low (Fig. 2).
Figure 2.
Forest plots comparing pooled data for recurrence, surgical‐site infection, seroma and haematoma after mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia a Recurrence, b surgical‐site infection, c seroma and d haematoma. A Mantel–Haenszel random‐effects model was used for meta‐analysis. Risk ratios are shown with 95 per cent confidence intervals.
Hernia recurrence, surgical‐site infection and seroma formation
Pooled data analyses
Mesh repair was associated with a significantly decreased risk of hernia recurrence compared with suture repair (RR 0·48, 95 per cent c.i. 0·30 to 0·77; P = 0·002) (Fig. 2). The NNT was 19 (95 per cent c.i. 14 to 31). Mesh repair was associated with a higher risk of seroma formation (RR 2·37, 1·45 to 3·87; P < 0·001), and the NNH was 30 (17 to 86). No significant difference was found in the risk of SSI (RR 1·57, 0·93 to 2·65; P = 0·090) or postoperative haematoma (RR 0·58, 0·25 to 1·34; P = 0·200).
Sensitivity analyses
A significant difference in the risk of recurrence was detected among the RCTs (RR 0·23, 95 per cent c.i. 0·12 to 0·46; P < 0·001), in contrast to the cohort studies (RR 0·70, 0·42 to 1·16; P = 0·170) (Fig. 3). The risk of SSI was significantly increased following mesh repair based on the cohort study data (RR 2·46, 1·38 to 4·38; P = 0·002), whereas no significant difference was detected among the RCTs (RR 0·76, 0·38 to 1·52; P = 0·440). Likewise, the risk of seroma formation was higher after mesh than suture repair in the cohort studies (RR 2·91, 1·57 to 5·38; P < 0·001), although not among the RCTs (RR 1·67, 0·79 to 3·54; P = 0·180).
Figure 3.
Forest plots comparing outcomes after mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia separately for RCT and cohort studies: sensitivity meta‐analysis a Recurrence, c surgical‐site infection (SSI) and e seroma in RCTs; b recurrence, d SSI and f seroma in cohort studies. Mantel–Haenszel fixed‐effect (a,c,e) and random‐effects (b,d,f) models were used for meta‐analysis. Risk ratios are shown with 95 per cent confidence intervals.
Pain
Pain was reported in seven of the included studies3, 5, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and assessed in a variety of ways (Table 1). Definitions of chronic pain also varied. Three reports were excluded from the comparison of chronic pain results, owing to follow‐up of only 7 days17 or less14, or no discrimination between the two repair methods among patients with chronic pain19. Two studies favoured mesh over suture, as ‘chronic pain in the operated area’ was found only in patients who had a suture repair (4 of 144, 2·8 per cent)18, and fewer analgesics were used for patients undergoing mesh repair compared with suture16. ‘Pain at rest or during physical activity’ was present more often in the mesh repair group in a single study5. Of 38 patients undergoing a mesh repair, six (16 per cent) had pain at rest and 18 (47 per cent) had pain during physical activity, compared with five (4·3 per cent) and 27 (23·5 per cent) respectively of 115 patients who had a suture repair5. In another study3, there was no significant difference in postoperative pain: 99 of 146 (67·8 per cent) versus 97 of 138 (70·3 per cent) in the suture group; after 2 years, 138 (94·5 per cent) and 129 (93·5 per cent) of patients respectively were pain‐free (P = 0·450).
Some studies reported additional outcomes to those shown in Table 1. One study5 reported patients' evaluation of surgery, and another3 reported on quality of life, assessed using two scales of health concepts: the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey 13 (Medical Outcomes Trust, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) and the EQ‐5D™‐5 L (EuroQol Group, Rotterdam, the Netherlands). No significant differences were found between the repair groups at any time points.
Discussion
This systematic review and meta‐analysis comparing the outcomes of elective open mesh and suture repair for umbilical hernia found that mesh repair was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence at the expense of an increased risk of seroma formation. There was no difference between the groups regarding the risks of SSI, haematoma or chronic pain. These findings are in agreement with other reviews6, 23, in which mesh repair was associated with a lower rate of recurrence and an increased rate of seroma compared with suture.
The present meta‐analysis included both RCTs and observational studies directed at elective repair of umbilical hernia in adults. Although RCTs are considered to deliver the highest level of evidence, it has been suggested24 that both RCTs and observational studies conducted on the same question should be included in meta‐analysis, using appropriate methods to adjust for specific biases. In the present systematic review, both RCTs and observational studies were included intentionally, as RCTs demonstrate the efficacy of a treatment in a specific population under controlled circumstances24, 25, whereas observational studies represent a more diverse group of patients, yielding higher external validity25. Although observational studies introduce some heterogeneity, owing to the variations in patient demography and technical elements of repair, it is worth noting that five of the six included RCTs were estimated to have an unclear to high risk of bias, due to poor explanation of the methods applied to adjust for bias. It was therefore considered justifiable to include both RCTs and observational studies, owing to the susceptibility to bias in each study design.
Risk factors affecting the outcome after ventral hernia repair include patient‐ and procedure‐related variables26. Patient variables associated with an increased risk of complications after ventral hernia repair include BMI of 30 kg/m2 or above, poorly controlled diabetes, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a history of SSI27, 28. Procedural variables such as antibiotic prophylaxis, duration of surgery, and use of drains may also affect this risk26. Mesh repair may require extended surgical dissection and prolonged operating time, along with risks of local foreign body reaction, seroma formation and contamination26. The reporting of patient‐ and procedure‐related variables differed considerably among the included studies, as did assessment of the outcomes SSI, seroma and haematoma. Differences in risks of SSI and seroma might reflect selection bias in the cohort studies, where four reported a significantly higher risk of SSI1, 5, 12, 20 and one an increased risk of seroma after mesh compared with suture repair12. Surgeons might have chosen mesh over suture repair for patients perceived to have a greater risk of recurrence, increasing the risk of SSI and seroma among the mesh‐repaired patients.
A single RCT3 found a significant decrease in the rate of recurrence for small hernia defects; defects of 1–2 cm were associated with a recurrence rate of 2 per cent following mesh repair versus 8 per cent after suture closure. In a large cohort study2 of both small umbilical and epigastric hernias, significant differences in cumulative recurrence rates were found after mesh versus suture repair of 0–1‐cm hernia defects (12 versus 21 per cent respectively) and 1–2‐cm defects (8 versus 17 per cent). In the present review, specification of hernia size varied too much for a subgroup analysis to be performed, so it was not possible to identify a specific defect size for small hernias for which mesh repair significantly reduced the recurrence rate without increasing the risk of complications.
Recently, the use of internal meshes for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence has received attention in public media, with an emphasis on the risk of complications such as chronic pain. Court actions against mesh manufacturers have been taken in several countries29. Concerns regarding pain with abdominal wall meshes may be less of an issue, but it is worth noting that in the present review the methodology of assessing chronic pain in each study varied markedly and pain results were contradictory, as both mesh and suture repair were favoured in individual studies for the prevention of chronic pain. However, the included large randomized multicentre trial showed that the risk of chronic pain was not altered significantly after mesh versus suture repair, when assessed by validated patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs)3. This was confirmed in the large cohort study2 for both umbilical and epigastric hernias; this study used a prospective follow‐up questionnaire to assess chronic pain and found no significant difference following mesh or suture repair. Registration and reporting of mesh use should be improved, and the wider use of PROMs, especially those incorporating measurement of recovery after abdominal surgery, advocated29, 30.
This review has limitations. Considerable heterogeneity was present in the meta‐analyses owing to varying methodologies, and only one RCT3 was estimated to have a low risk of bias. Although selection bias in the cohort studies may have favoured suture over mesh to prevent SSI and seroma, preoperative prehabilitation, antibiotic prophylaxis and perioperative factors such as length of incision and surgical technique may have varied considerably between the studies. Lack of standardization regarding postoperative recovery protocols and variations in the duration of follow‐up were further confounders that could not be considered for analysis.
Although elective mesh repair of umbilical hernia imposes an increased risk of seroma, there was still variation in the estimation of this risk. On the basis of lower recurrence rates and no clear evidence of an increased risk of chronic pain, the technique of mesh repair is supported.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Research Foundation of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, University of Copenhagen.
Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding information
Research Foundation of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, University of Copenhagen
Presented in part to the Annual Meeting of the Danish Surgical Society, Copenhagen, Denmark, November 2018
References
- 1. Winsnes A, Haapamäki MM, Gunnarsson U, Strigard K. Surgical outcome of mesh and suture repair in primary umbilical hernia: postoperative complications and recurrence. Hernia 2016; 20: 509–516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Christoffersen MW, Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, Strandfelt P, Bisgaard T. Long‐term recurrence and chronic pain after repair for small umbilical or epigastric hernias: a regional cohort study. Am J Surg 2015; 209: 725–732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Kaufmann R, Halm JA, Eker HH, Klitsie PJ, Nieuwenhuizen J, van Geldere D et al Mesh versus suture repair of umbilical hernia in adults: a randomised, double‐blind, controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 2018; 391: 860–869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Schumacher OP, Peiper C, Lörken M, Schumpelick V. Long‐term results after Spitzy's umbilical hernia repair. Chirurg 2003; 74: 50–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Venclauskas L, Jokubauskas M, Zilinskas J, Zviniene K, Kiudelis M. Long‐term follow‐up results of umbilical hernia repair. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2017; 12: 350–356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Nguyen MT, Berger RL, Hicks SC, Davila JA, Li LT, Kao LS et al Comparison of outcomes of synthetic mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Surg 2014; 149: 415–421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, Campanelli G, Champault GG, Chelala E et al Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 2009; 13: 407–414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M et al The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta‐Analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp [accessed 5 February 2020]. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration: Copenhagen, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine, University of Oxford. Number Needed to Treat (NNT) https://www.cebm.net/2014/03/number-needed-to-treat-nnt/; 2019 [accessed 5 February 2020].
- 12. Berger RL, Li LT, Hicks SC, Liang MK. Suture versus preperitoneal polypropylene mesh for elective umbilical hernia repairs. J Surg Res 2014; 192: 426–431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Sanjay P, Reid TD, Davies EL, Arumugam PJ, Woodward A. Retrospective comparison of mesh and sutured repair for adult umbilical hernias. Hernia 2005; 9: 248–251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Tunio NA. Hernioplasty: tension free mesh repair versus Mayo's repair for umbilical hernias. J Pak Med Assoc 2017; 67: 24–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Arroyo A, Garcia P, Perez F, Andreu J, Candela F, Calpena R. Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1321–1323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Lal K, Laghari ZH, Laghari AA, Soomro E. A comparative study of anatomical repair versus mesh repair in paraumbilical hernia. Medical Channel 2012; 19: 110–113. [Google Scholar]
- 17. Polat C, Dervisoglu A, Senyurek G, Bilgin M, Erzurumlu K, Ozkan K. Umbilical hernia repair with the prolene hernia system. Am J Surg 2005; 190: 61–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Dalenbäck J, Andersson C, Ribokas D, Rimbäck G. Long‐term follow‐up after elective adult umbilical hernia repair: low recurrence rates also after non‐mesh repairs. Hernia 2013; 17: 493–497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Halm JA, Heisterkamp J, Veen HF, Weidema WF. Long‐term follow‐up after umbilical hernia repair: are there risk factors for recurrence after simple and mesh repair. Hernia 2005; 9: 334–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Farrow B, Awad S, Berger DH, Albo D, Lee L, Subramanian A et al More than 150 consecutive open umbilical hernia repairs in a major Veterans Administration Medical Center. Am J Surg 2008; 196: 647–651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Sadiq F, Khurshid NA. Paraumbilical hernias: a comparison between mesh hernioplasty and simple suture repair at Arif Memorial Teaching Hospital Lahore. Pak J Med Health Sci 2013; 7: 925–927. [Google Scholar]
- 22. Asolati M, Huerta S, Sarosi G, Harmon R, Bell C, Anthony T. Predictors of recurrence in veteran patients with umbilical hernia: single center experience. Am J Surg 2006; 192: 627–630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Bisgaard T, Kaufmann R, Christoffersen MW, Strandfelt P, Gluud LL. Lower risk of recurrence after mesh repair versus non‐mesh sutured repair in open umbilical hernia repair: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Scand J Surg 2019; 108: 187–193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Sørensen HT, Lash TL, Rothman KJ. Beyond randomized controlled trials: a critical comparison of trials with nonrandomized studies. Hepatology 2006; 44: 1075–1082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Faraoni D, Schaefer ST. Randomized controlled trials vs observational studies: why not just live together? BMC Anesthesiol 2016; 16: 102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Berger RL, Li LT, Hicks SC, Davila JA, Kao LS, Liang MK. Development and validation of a risk‐stratification score for surgical site occurrence and surgical site infection after open ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217: 974–982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Kanters AE, Krpata DM, Blatnik JA, Novitsky YM, Rosen MJ. Modified hernia grading scale to stratify surgical site occurrence after open ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 2012; 215: 787–793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Liang MK, Holihan JL, Itani K, Alawadi ZM, Gonzalez JR, Askenasy EP et al Ventral hernia management: expert consensus guided by systematic review. Ann Surg 2017; 265: 80–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Fiore JF Jr, Figueiredo S, Balvardi S, Lee L, Nauche B, Landry T et al How do we value postoperative recovery?: a systematic review of the measurement properties of patient‐reported outcomes after abdominal surgery. Ann Surg 2018; 267: 656–669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Neville A, Lee L, Antonescu I, Mayo NE, Vassiliou MC, Fried GM et al Systematic review of outcomes used to evaluate enhanced recovery after surgery. Br J Surg 2014; 101: 159–170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]