Background: Hiatal hernia repair (HHR) is a complex surgical procedure and its management is not standardized. Several meta-analyses have compared cruroplasty with hiatus reinforcement with mesh, and crura augmentation appears to have better outcomes. However, heterogeneity in type of mesh and placement techniques has differed significantly. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were carried out. An electronic systematic research was carried out throughout Pubmed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science, of articles analyzing HHR with cruroplasty, nonabsorbable mesh (NAM), and absorbable mesh (AM) reinforcement. Results: Seventeen articles based on 1857 patients were enrolled in this article. The point estimation showed that when compared against the control group (NAM), the HH recurrence risk in AM and cruroplasty group was higher (relative ratio [RR] 2.3; CrI 0.8-6.3, RR 3.6; CrI 2.0-8.3, respectively). Postoperative complication rates were alike in all groups. The prevalence of mesh erosion after HHR is low. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis showed that prosthetic reinforcement significantly reduced HH recurrence when compared with cruroplasty alone. However, there is not enough evidence to compare different mesh compositions.
Keywords: absorbable mesh; cruroplasty; hiatal hernia repair; mesh reinforcement; nonabsorbable mesh.