Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of Vypro II mesh and polypropylene mesh after inguinal hernia repair.
Summary Background Data: The use of prosthetic meshes has become increasingly popular in inguinal hernia surgery. Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed the relative merits and risks between VYPRO II mesh and standard polypropylene mesh. A meta-analysis was needed to estimate the real effectiveness.
Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE, SCI and Chinese Biomedical Literature Databases were used to search the published clinical randomized controlled trials about Vypro II mesh. Two independent reviewers assessed the trials for eligibility and quality, all the related data matching our standards were abstracted for Meta-analysis by RevMan 5.0.1. The evaluation criteria included recurrence, pain, urinary tract infection, seroma, the feeling of a foreign body, and testicular atrophy.
Result: A total of 2027 patients of 10 RCTs were included. Compared with polypropylene Mesh, Vypro II Mesh had no significant difference in recurrence (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 0.73–3.19), pain (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.55–1.37), urinary tract infection (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.14–3.63), seroma (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.26–2.48), and testicular atrophy (OR = 1.94, 95% CI 0.58–6.49), but the feeling of a foreign body was significantly lower (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.42–0.80).
Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that there is no significant difference between Vypro II and polypropylene mesh in short-term effectiveness. However, use of Vypro II mesh was associated with reduced feeling of a foreign body. Further high-quality, long follow-up period RCTs should be carried out to provide more reliable evidence.
We compare the effectiveness of Vypro II mesh and polypropylene mesh after inguinal hernia repair. There is no significant difference between Vypro II and polypropylene mesh in short-term effectiveness, but the feeling of a foreign body was significantly lower with Vypro II mesh.
From the *Evidence-Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, China; and †The First Clinical Medical School of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, China.
No sponsors were involved in study design, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.
Reprints: Kehu Yang, MD, Dong Gang West Rd No. 199, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, China 730000. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.