Open mesh vs. suture umbilical hernia repair: systematic review and updated trial sequential meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Hernia, ISSN: 1248-9204, Vol: 24, Issue: 4, Page: 707-715
2020
- 10Citations
- 31Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations10
- Citation Indexes10
- 10
- CrossRef6
- Captures31
- Readers31
- 31
Review Description
Purpose: To examine the updated evidence on safety, effectiveness, and outcomes of mesh versus suture elective umbilical hernia (UH) repair and to explore the timely tendency variations favouring one treatment over another. Methods: MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were consulted. A systematic review, pairwise meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted. Results: Six RCTs were included for a total of 742 patients. Overall, 383 (51.6%) underwent mesh, while 359 (48.4%) underwent suture repair. The estimated pooled postoperative recurrence RR was 0.27 (95% CI 0.13–0.53; p < 0.001). The TSA showed a statistically significant timely tendency in favour of mesh repair with a boundary cross curve (Z = 1.96) before reaching the information size. The estimated pooled seroma, haematoma, and wound infection RR were 1.45 (p = 0.368), 0.54 (p = 0.196), and 0.71 (p = 0.375), respectively. The TSA for wound-related complications showed partial, non-significant results. Conclusions: Elective UH mesh repair seems to be associated with reduced risk of postoperative recurrence compared to simple suture repair with a statistically significant timely trend endorsed by the TSA. Definitive considerations concerning the cumulative effect for seroma, haematoma, and wound infection are premature. Further studies are warranted to endorse these results and deeply investigate the timely tendency variations.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85083069495&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02146-1; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32096090; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10029-020-02146-1; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02146-1; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10029-020-02146-1
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know