IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0135073.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa versus Polypropylene in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Nie
  • Dongdong Xiao
  • Wenyue Wang
  • Zhicheng Song
  • Zhi Yang
  • Yuanwen Chen
  • Yan Gu

Abstract

Background: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS) with polypropylene in open inguinal hernia repair. Method: Electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were used to compare patient outcomes for the two groups via meta-analysis. Result: A total of 3 randomized controlled trials encompassing 200 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in recurrence (P = 0.16), hematomas (P = 0.06), postoperative pain within 30 days (P = 0.45), or postoperative pain after 1 year (P = 0.12) between the 2 groups. The incidence of discomfort was significantly lower (P = 0.0006) in the SIS group. However, the SIS group experienced a significantly higher incidence of seroma (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Compared to polypropylene, using SIS in open inguinal hernia repair is associated with a lower incidence of discomfort and a higher incidence of seroma. However, well-designed larger RCT studies with a longer follow-up period are needed to confirm these findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Nie & Dongdong Xiao & Wenyue Wang & Zhicheng Song & Zhi Yang & Yuanwen Chen & Yan Gu, 2015. "Comparison of Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa versus Polypropylene in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0135073
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135073
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135073&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0135073?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0135073. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.