Biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh in open XXXX : system review and meta-analysis.

@entity1 @entity2080 @entity1410 @entity158 @entity169
BACKGROUND: Biologic meshes are mostly used for abdominal wall reinforcement in infected fields, but no consensus has been reached on its use for @entity169 repairing. The purpose of this study was to compare biologic mesh with synthetic mesh in open inguinal herniorrhaphy. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was undertaken to identify studies comparing the outcomes of biologic mesh and synthetic mesh in open @entity169 . Published studies were identified by the databases PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: A total of 382 @entity1 in five randomized controlled trials were reviewed (179 @entity1 in biologic mesh group; 203 @entity1 in synthetic mesh group). The two groups did not significantly differ in chronic @entity158 (P = 0.06) or recurrence (P = 0.38). The incidence of @entity2080 trended higher in biologic mesh group (P = 0.03). Operating time was significantly longer with biologic mesh (P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in @entity1410 (P = 0.23) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: From the data of this study, biologic mesh had no superiority to synthetic mesh in open @entity169 with similar recurrence rates and incidence of chronic @entity158 , but higher rate of @entity2080 and longer operating time. However, this mesh still needs to be assessed in a large, multicentre, well-designed randomized controlled trial.
