Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection - A systematic review and meta-analysis.
meta_analysis · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 35712806.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1111/codi.16224 and PMC identifier 9796945.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC-ND.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair. All original studies (n ≥ 2 patients) reporting recurrence rates after perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection (APR) were included. The electronic database PubMed was last searched in December 2021. The primary outcome was recurrent perineal hernia. A weighted average of the logit proportions was determined by the use of the generic inverse variance method and random effects model. A total of 19 studies involving 172 patients were included. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 5.6 years and the indication for APR was predominantly cancer (99%, 170/172). The pooled percentage of recurrent perineal hernia was 39% (95% CI: 27%-52%) after biological mesh closure, 29% (95% CI: 21%-39%) after synthetic mesh closure, 37% (95% CI: 14%-67%) after tissue flap reconstruction only and 9% (95% CI: 1%-45%) after tissue flap reconstruction combined with mesh. Recurrence rates after mesh repair of perineal hernia are high, without a clear difference between biological and synthetic meshes. The addition of a tissue flap to mesh repair seemed to have a favourable outcome, which warrants further investigation.
Medical subject headings
- Hernia, Abdominal
- Herniorrhaphy
- Proctectomy
- Surgical Mesh
- Free Tissue Flaps