Absorbable versus non-absorbable tacks for mesh fixation in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the outcomes of absorbable versus non-absorbable tacks in patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

Methods: We performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. 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 investigating outcomes of absorbable versus non-absorbable tacks for mesh fixation in patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. 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. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.

Results: We identified three RCTs and two observational studies enrolling a total of 1149 patients. The included patients were comparable in terms of age [Mean difference (MD) 0.28, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.45-2, P = 0.75], male gender (MD 0.81, 95% CI 0.63-1.04, P = 0.10), body mass index (MD -041, 95% CI -1.28-0.46, P = 0.36) and hernia defect size (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.26-0.49, P = 0.54). The mean and median follow-up period was 30 months and 13 months, respectively There was no difference between the two mesh fixation techniques in terms of recurrence [Risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI -0.04, 0.09, P = 0.47], chronic pain [Odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.62-1.33, P = 0.64], seroma (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.37-2.60, P = 0.96), haematoma (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.04- 0.04, P = 0.99), prolonged ileus (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.24-4.03, P = 0.99), length of hospital stay (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.36-0.56, P = 0.68) and port-site hernia (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.13-7.16, P = 0.98). The operative time was longer in absorbable tack group (MD 7.53, 95% CI 1.49-13.58, P = 0.01). The results remain consistent when randomised trials were analysed separately.

Conclusions: We found no difference in clinical outcomes between absorbable and non-absorbable tacks for mesh fixation in patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. The quality of the available evidence is moderate with a possibility of type 2 error. High quality RCTs with adequate statistical power are required to provide more robust basis for definite conclusions. Considering the similarity of both techniques in terms of clinical outcomes, the cost-effectiveness of each technique would be an important outcome determining which technique should be used; this needs to be considered as an outcome of interest in future studies.

Keywords: Absorbable; Laparoscopy; Non-absorbable; Tacks; Ventral hernia.