Publication:
Risk-benefit assessment of onlay and retrorectus mesh augmentation for incisional hernia prophylaxis: A secondary analysis from network meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorAmarit Tansaweten_US
dc.contributor.authorPawin Numthavajen_US
dc.contributor.authorSuphakarn Techapongsatornen_US
dc.contributor.authorGareth McKayen_US
dc.contributor.authorJohn Attiaen_US
dc.contributor.authorOraluck Pattanaprateepen_US
dc.contributor.authorAmmarin Thakkinstianen_US
dc.contributor.otherSchool of Medicine and Public Healthen_US
dc.contributor.otherQueen's University Belfasten_US
dc.contributor.otherVajira Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T09:16:43Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T09:16:43Z
dc.date.issued2021-08-01en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Mesh augmentation has proved efficacious for the prevention of incisional hernia (IH). A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) identified onlay and retrorectus mesh (OM and RM) as the most effective therapeutic options, but the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and other complications require additional consideration. Methods: The NMA generated pooled risk differences (RD) for the benefits of reducing IH and the risk of SSI and composite seroma/hematoma (CSH) for use in Monte-Carlo data simulations with 1000 replications. Mean incremental risk-benefit ratios (IRBR), i.e., the ratio of incremental risk (or RD) and incremental benefit, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated with a probability of risk-benefits (PRB) across risk-benefit acceptability thresholds from the acceptability curves generated. Results: The RDs of IH were 0.237 and 0.201 lower in OM and RM than primary suture closure, compared to 0.027 and −0.001 for SSI. IRBRs (95% CI) for SSI risk were −0.118 (−0.124, −0.112) and 0.006 (−0.002, 0.013) for OM and RM, respectively. PRBs were much higher in RM than OM, especially at low acceptability thresholds of 0.05 and 0.1. IRBRs (95% CI) for CSH were −0.388 (−0.395, −0.381) and −0.105 (−0.111, −0.100) for OM and RM, respectively. RM yielded a PRB of 0.87 at an acceptability threshold of 0.2, in contrast to OM, which did not. Conclusion: Overall, RM offered improved benefit in IH prophylaxis over the risk of complications relative to OM and appeared to be the preferred treatment option for this indication.en_US
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Surgery. Vol.92, (2021)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106053en_US
dc.identifier.issn17439159en_US
dc.identifier.issn17439191en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85112673081en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/77990
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85112673081&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleRisk-benefit assessment of onlay and retrorectus mesh augmentation for incisional hernia prophylaxis: A secondary analysis from network meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeReviewen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85112673081&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections