PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: This analysis addresses the uncertainty surrounding the efficacy of glue mesh fixation (GMF) compared with tack mesh fixation (TMF) in laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. Our meta-analysis incorporates recently conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to enhance the reference for assessing the efficacy and safety of GMF.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library were extensively reviewed for articles in the English language performed from inception to May 2023 using the keywords \"Glue mesh repair,\" \"Tack mesh repair,\" \"Inguinal Hernia,\" \"Herniorrhaphy,\" \"Laparoscopic,\" \"Mesh Fixation,\" and \"Randomized controlled trials.\"
UNASSIGNED: In this meta-analysis, we incorporated a total of 20 randomized controlled trials, evaluating each article individually using quality ratings. Compared with TMF, GMF demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence of chronic pain [RR: 0.40, (0.23, 0.68)] and pain scores on postoperative day 1 [MD: -1.07, (-1.90, -0.25)]. We also used funnel plots and Egger\'s regression to test for publication bias.
UNASSIGNED: In summary, this meta-analysis establishes the significance of GMF in reducing chronic pain and postoperative day 1 pain compared with TMF. However, no statistically significant difference was noted between the GMF and TMF groups concerning hematoma, seroma, operation time, recurrence rate, and total complications. Nonetheless, given the small number of cases in this study, the findings must be validated in the future by multicenter, large-sample, high-quality RCTs.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library were extensively reviewed for articles in the English language performed from inception to May 2023 using the keywords \"Glue mesh repair,\" \"Tack mesh repair,\" \"Inguinal Hernia,\" \"Herniorrhaphy,\" \"Laparoscopic,\" \"Mesh Fixation,\" and \"Randomized controlled trials.\"
UNASSIGNED: In this meta-analysis, we incorporated a total of 20 randomized controlled trials, evaluating each article individually using quality ratings. Compared with TMF, GMF demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence of chronic pain [RR: 0.40, (0.23, 0.68)] and pain scores on postoperative day 1 [MD: -1.07, (-1.90, -0.25)]. We also used funnel plots and Egger\'s regression to test for publication bias.
UNASSIGNED: In summary, this meta-analysis establishes the significance of GMF in reducing chronic pain and postoperative day 1 pain compared with TMF. However, no statistically significant difference was noted between the GMF and TMF groups concerning hematoma, seroma, operation time, recurrence rate, and total complications. Nonetheless, given the small number of cases in this study, the findings must be validated in the future by multicenter, large-sample, high-quality RCTs.
摘要：
■该分析解决了在腹腔镜疝修补术中与胶网固定（GMF）相比，胶网固定（GMF）的疗效存在不确定性。我们的荟萃分析结合了最近进行的随机对照试验（RCT），以增强评估GMF疗效和安全性的参考。
■PubMedCentral，谷歌学者，科学直接，和Cochrane图书馆广泛审查了从开始到2023年5月使用关键字“胶水网格修复，\"\"钉网孔修复,\"\"腹股沟疝,\"\"疝修补术,\"\"腹腔镜,\"\"网格固定,“和”随机对照试验。\"
■在此荟萃分析中，我们共纳入了20项随机对照试验，使用质量评级单独评估每篇文章。与TMF相比，GMF显示术后第1天慢性疼痛[RR:0.40,(0.23,0.68)]和疼痛评分[MD:-1.07,(-1.90,-0.25)]的发生率显著降低。我们还使用漏斗图和Egger回归来测试发表偏倚。
■总之，这项荟萃分析确定了与TMF相比,GMF在减轻慢性疼痛和术后第1天疼痛方面的意义.然而,关于血肿，GMF和TMF组之间无统计学差异，血清肿,操作时间,复发率,和总并发症。尽管如此，鉴于本研究中的案例数量很少，这些发现必须在未来由多中心验证，大样本,高质量的RCT。
■PubMedCentral，谷歌学者，科学直接，和Cochrane图书馆广泛审查了从开始到2023年5月使用关键字“胶水网格修复，\"\"钉网孔修复,\"\"腹股沟疝,\"\"疝修补术,\"\"腹腔镜,\"\"网格固定,“和”随机对照试验。\"
■在此荟萃分析中，我们共纳入了20项随机对照试验，使用质量评级单独评估每篇文章。与TMF相比，GMF显示术后第1天慢性疼痛[RR:0.40,(0.23,0.68)]和疼痛评分[MD:-1.07,(-1.90,-0.25)]的发生率显著降低。我们还使用漏斗图和Egger回归来测试发表偏倚。
■总之，这项荟萃分析确定了与TMF相比,GMF在减轻慢性疼痛和术后第1天疼痛方面的意义.然而,关于血肿，GMF和TMF组之间无统计学差异，血清肿,操作时间,复发率,和总并发症。尽管如此，鉴于本研究中的案例数量很少，这些发现必须在未来由多中心验证，大样本,高质量的RCT。
