Introduction: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) have been used to compare and evaluate different types of mesh fixation usually employed to repair open inguinal hernia. However, there is no consensus among surgeons on the best type of mesh fixation method to obtain optimal results. The choice often depends on surgeons' personal preference. This study aims to compare different types of mesh fixation methods to repair open inguinal hernias and their role in the incidences of chronic groin pain, risk of hernia recurrence, complications, operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative pain, using Bayesian network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of RCTs.
Methods and analysis: A systematic search will be performed using PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and Chinese Journal Full-text Database, to include RCTs of different mesh fixation methods (or fixation vs no fixation) during open inguinal hernia repair. The risk of bias in included RCTs will be evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook V.5.1.0. Standard pairwise meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed to compare the efficacy of different mesh fixation methods.
Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval and patient consent are not required since this study is a meta-analysis based on published studies. The results of this network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
Protocol registration number: PROSPERO CRD42015023758.
Keywords: COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE; STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS; SURGERY.
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/