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.
Summary Background Data:
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.