Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Pooled data analysis of primary ventral (PVH) and incisional hernia (IH) repair is no more acceptable: results of a systematic review and metanalysis of current literature
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Pooled data analysis of primary ventral (PVH) and incisional hernia (IH) repair is no more acceptable: results of a systematic review and metanalysis of current literature
Do you wish to request the book?
Pooled data analysis of primary ventral (PVH) and incisional hernia (IH) repair is no more acceptable: results of a systematic review and metanalysis of current literature
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Pooled data analysis of primary ventral (PVH) and incisional hernia (IH) repair is no more acceptable: results of a systematic review and metanalysis of current literature
2019
Overview
PurposePrimary (PVHs) and incisional (IHs) ventral hernias represent a common indication for surgery. Nevertheless, most of the papers presented in literature analyze both types of defect together, thus potentially introducing a bias in the results of interpretation. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to highlight the differences between these two entities.MethodsMethods MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were reviewed to identify studies evaluating the outcomes of both open and laparoscopic repair with mesh of PVHs vs IHs. Search was restricted to English language literature. Risk of bias was assessed with MINORS score. Primary outcome was recurrence, and secondary outcomes were baseline characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative data. Fixed effects model was used unless significant heterogeneity, assessed with the Higgins I square (I2), was encountered.ResultsThe search resulted in 783 hits, after screening; 11 retrospective trials were selected including 38,727 patients. Mean MINORS of included trials was 15.2 (range 5–21). The estimated pooled proportion difference for recurrence was − 0.09 (− 0.11; − 0.07) between the two groups in favor of the PVH group. On metanalysis, PVHs were smaller in area and diameters, affected younger and less comorbid patients, and were more frequently singular; the operative time and length of stay was quicker. Other complications did not differ significantly.ConclusionOur paper supports the hypothesis that PVH and IH are different conditions with the latter being more challenging to treat. Accordingly, EHS classifications should be adopted systematically as well as pooling data analysis should be no longer performed in clinical trials.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
