Effects of different mesh materials on complications after prophylactic placement for stoma formation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Purpose: We primary aimed to synthesise the available data, assess the effectiveness of different mesh materials in prophylactic mesh placement, and rank these materials according to the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) and other stoma complications.This network meta-analysis performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Four databases were searched for randomised controlled trials of prophylactic mesh placement. The aggregated results were performed in the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random effects models.Thirteen randomised controlled trials from 1203 articles, met the inclusion criteria, including 681 cases without meshes, 65 cases with mesh material of xenogeneic acellular dermis (porcine/bovine), 27 cases with polypropylene/PG910, 114 cases with polypropylene/polyglecaprone (Monocryl), 117 cases with polypropylene/cellulose (ORC), 233 cases with polypropylene, and 35 cases with polypropylene/PVDF. In network A, compared with no mesh, only polypropylene (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04–0.80) were significantly associated with a reduction in the incidence of PSH. In network B, no statistical difference regarding stoma complications was found between mesh and no mesh.Based on the network meta-analysis and ranking results, the polypropylene mesh material exhibited the best performance. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with larger sample sizes and high-quality randomised controlled trials.Method: We primary aimed to synthesise the available data, assess the effectiveness of different mesh materials in prophylactic mesh placement, and rank these materials according to the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) and other stoma complications.This network meta-analysis performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Four databases were searched for randomised controlled trials of prophylactic mesh placement. The aggregated results were performed in the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random effects models.Thirteen randomised controlled trials from 1203 articles, met the inclusion criteria, including 681 cases without meshes, 65 cases with mesh material of xenogeneic acellular dermis (porcine/bovine), 27 cases with polypropylene/PG910, 114 cases with polypropylene/polyglecaprone (Monocryl), 117 cases with polypropylene/cellulose (ORC), 233 cases with polypropylene, and 35 cases with polypropylene/PVDF. In network A, compared with no mesh, only polypropylene (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04–0.80) were significantly associated with a reduction in the incidence of PSH. In network B, no statistical difference regarding stoma complications was found between mesh and no mesh.Based on the network meta-analysis and ranking results, the polypropylene mesh material exhibited the best performance. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with larger sample sizes and high-quality randomised controlled trials.Result: We primary aimed to synthesise the available data, assess the effectiveness of different mesh materials in prophylactic mesh placement, and rank these materials according to the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) and other stoma complications.This network meta-analysis performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Four databases were searched for randomised controlled trials of prophylactic mesh placement. The aggregated results were performed in the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random effects models.Thirteen randomised controlled trials from 1203 articles, met the inclusion criteria, including 681 cases without meshes, 65 cases with mesh material of xenogeneic acellular dermis (porcine/bovine), 27 cases with polypropylene/PG910, 114 cases with polypropylene/polyglecaprone (Monocryl), 117 cases with polypropylene/cellulose (ORC), 233 cases with polypropylene, and 35 cases with polypropylene/PVDF. In network A, compared with no mesh, only polypropylene (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04–0.80) were significantly associated with a reduction in the incidence of PSH. In network B, no statistical difference regarding stoma complications was found between mesh and no mesh.Based on the network meta-analysis and ranking results, the polypropylene mesh material exhibited the best performance. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with larger sample sizes and high-quality randomised controlled trials.Conclusion: We primary aimed to synthesise the available data, assess the effectiveness of different mesh materials in prophylactic mesh placement, and rank these materials according to the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) and other stoma complications.This network meta-analysis performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Four databases were searched for randomised controlled trials of prophylactic mesh placement. The aggregated results were performed in the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random effects models.Thirteen randomised controlled trials from 1203 articles, met the inclusion criteria, including 681 cases without meshes, 65 cases with mesh material of xenogeneic acellular dermis (porcine/bovine), 27 cases with polypropylene/PG910, 114 cases with polypropylene/polyglecaprone (Monocryl), 117 cases with polypropylene/cellulose (ORC), 233 cases with polypropylene, and 35 cases with polypropylene/PVDF. In network A, compared with no mesh, only polypropylene (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04–0.80) were significantly associated with a reduction in the incidence of PSH. In network B, no statistical difference regarding stoma complications was found between mesh and no mesh.Based on the network meta-analysis and ranking results, the polypropylene mesh material exhibited the best performance. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with larger sample sizes and high-quality randomised controlled trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]