Sutured Versus Mesh-augmented Hiatus Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Abstract

This meta-analysis systematically reviewed published randomized control trials comparing sutured versus mesh-augmented hiatus hernia (HH) repair. Our primary endpoint was HH recurrence at short- and long-term follow-up. Secondary endpoints were: surgical complications, operative times, dysphagia and quality of life. Repair of large HHs is increasingly being performed. However, there is no consensus for the optimal technique for hiatal closure between sutured versus mesh-augmented (absorbable or nonabsorbable) repair. A systematic review of Medline, Scopus (which encompassed Embase), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies comparing mesh-augmented versus sutured HH repair. Data were extracted and compared by meta-analysis, using odds ratio and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Seven randomized control trials were found which compared mesh-augmented (nonabsorbable mesh: n = 296; absorbable mesh: n = 92) with sutured repair (n = 347). There were no significant differences for short-term hernia recurrence (defined as 6-12 months, 10.1% mesh vs 15.5% sutured, P = 0.22), long-term hernia recurrence (defined as 3-5 years, 30.7% mesh vs 31.3% sutured, P = 0.69), functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. The only statistically significant difference was that the mesh repair required a longer operation time (P = 0.05, OR 2.33, 95% confidence interval 0.03-24.69). Mesh repair for HH does not offer any advantage over sutured hiatal closure. As both techniques deliver good and comparable clinical outcomes, a suture only technique is still an appropriate approach.