Plain English summary
Background
Methods
Search strategy
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Data extraction and quality evaluation
Statistical analysis
Results
Search strategy
Study characteristics
Study (Author/Year) (Evidence level) | Country | Surgery | Design | Patients (n) | Mean age (years) | Mesh materials | Hernia side | Outcome measure | Follow-up (months) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bansal 2017 (I-1b) [13] | India | TAPP/TEP | RCT | TAPP 80 | TAPP 40.9 ± 12.3 | NS | Unilateral Hernia Bilateral hernia | Testicular functions Sexual functions | 3 |
VS TEP 80 | TEP 40 ± 12.5 | ||||||||
Krnić 2016 (III-3b) [14] | Croatia | Open | Case-control | Non-complicated hernia 57 VS Incarcerated hernia 64 | Group I 57 (40–81) | Bard® mesh | Right Hernia Left Hernia | Testicular blood flow | 5 |
Group II 64 (28–80) | |||||||||
Lal 2016 (III-3b) [15] | India | TEP | Self Case-control | 28 | 42.4 (18–72) | Bard 3DMax™ mesh | unilateral hernia (16 right sided and 8 left sided, 21 indirect and 3 direct hernias) and 4 to have bilateral hernia (2 direct and 2 indirect). | Resistive index | 3 |
Gvenetadze 2016 (III-3b) [16] | Georgia | Open | Case control | Lichtenstein 66 Gvenetadze method 149 | 19–40 | mesh | Bilateral | Oligospermia, reduction of the quantitative sperm | 1,6 |
Shkvarkovskiy 2015 (III-3b) [17] | Russian | Open | Case control | New method 61 | 19–61 | Polymeric mesh | Hernia | testicular arteries, testicular volume, sex hormones level. | NS |
Lichtenstein 63 | |||||||||
Yan 2015 (IV-4) [18] | China | Open | Retrospective study | 142 | 24.0 ± 2.0 | mesh | Unilateral | Infertility Sex function | 3–36 |
Khodari 2015 (IV-4) [19] | France | Open | Retrospective study | 69 | NS | polypropylene mesh | Bilateral (history of hernia repair) | Risk of infertility | NS |
Stula 2014 (II-2b) [27] | Croatia | TAPP/Open | Cohort study | TAPP 29 | 61(33–81) | Prolene mesh | Unilateral Bilateral | testicular blood flow (RI, PSV, EDV), ASA | 5–6 |
Open 53 | |||||||||
Peeters 2014 (I-1b) [28] | Belgium | TEP | RCT | Marlex ® 20 | 20–50 | (Marlex ®) VyproII ® TiMesh ® | Unilateral 39 Bilateral 20 | Semen analysis | 36 |
VyproII ® 20 | |||||||||
TiMesh ® 19 | |||||||||
Schouten 2012 (protocol) [29] | Netherlands | TEP | Cohort study | 21 | 18–60 | Prolene | Bilateral inguinal hernias | testicular perfusion and volume, semen quantity and quality endocrinological status | 6 |
Stula 2012 (II-2b) [30] | Croatia | TAPP/Open | Cohort | TAPP15 Open28 | 62(33–81) | Prolene mesh | Unilateral Bilateral | Testicular, capsular, intratesticular arterial flow dynamics | 5 |
Singh 2012 (I-1b) [31] | India | TAPP, TEP/Open | RCT | LAP (TAPP, TEP)60 Open 57 | LAP 45.7 ± 14.6 | mesh | Unilateral Bilateral | Testicular functions (testicular volume, blood flow, hormones) | 3 |
Open 45.4 ± 17.8 | |||||||||
Hallén 2012 (IV-4) [32] | Sweden | Open | retrospective | Open 34,267 | 23–62 | mesh | Unilateral Bilaterally | Risk for infertility | 12 |
No mesh | |||||||||
Skawran 2011 (III-3b) [33] | Germany | TEP | Case control | Light mesh group 21 | 18–60 | Bard TM soft mesh Bard TM flat mesh | Bilateral | Testicular volume and perfusion, serum levels of sexual hormones, ejaculate volume, and number of spermatic cells. | 3 |
Heavy group 38 | |||||||||
Hallén 2011 (III-3b) [34] | Sweden | NS | Case control | With mesh 232 | 18–55 | mesh/ without mesh | Bilateral(344) | Risk for infertility | NS |
Without mesh 112 | |||||||||
Control general 202 | |||||||||
Peeters 2010 (I-1b) [10] | Belgium | TEP | RCT | Marlex ® 20 | 20–50 | (Marlex ®) VyproII ® | Unilateral 39 Bilateral 20 | Semen analysis, scrotal ultrasonography | 12 |
VyproII ® 20 | TiMesh ® | ||||||||
TiMesh ® 19 | |||||||||
Sucullu 2010 (I-1b) [35] | Turkey | open | RCT | Lichtenstein 32 | LG 22 (20–28) | Polypropylene mesh | Unilateral | Testicular volume, resistive index Testicular function | 3 |
Mesh plug 32 | MPG 23 (20–30) | ||||||||
Kiladze 2009 (III-3b) [36] | Georgia | Open | Case control | Lichtenstein 56 | 44.8 | mesh | Bilateral | Main sperm parameters | 6 |
Modified Lichtenstein 61 | |||||||||
Chu 2009 (IV-4) [37] | USA | Open | Case series | 4 | NS | mesh | NS | Testicular atrophy | 6 |
Ramadan 2009 (III-3b) [38] | Turkey | Open | Case control | Indirect inguinal hernias 48 | 44.5 (30–73) | mesh | Unilateral direct inguinal hernia | testicular parenchyma, testicular arterial impedance, perfusion, venous flow | 2 |
Normal contralateral side 48 | |||||||||
Yamaguchi 2008 [39] (V-5) | Japan | Open | Case report | 1 | 30 | Polypropylene mesh | Bilateral herniorrhaphy | Hormonal testing Semen analyses Testicular size | 15 |
Brisinda 2008 (IV-4) [40] | Italy | Open | Case series | 26 | NS | mesh | Hernia tension free repair | testicular perfusion | 9 |
Dohle 2006 (V-5) [41] | Netherlands | open | Case report | 2 | 35 | Polypropylene mesh | Unilateral Bilateral | Semen analysis | 3 |
Langenbach 2006 (I-1b) [42] | Germany | TAPP | RCT | Monofile, heavy-weight, rigid mesh 30 Smooth, heavy-weight variant of polypropylene 30 Polyglactin/polypropylene compound mesh 30 | 35–75 | Rigid mesh Polypropylene Polyglactin/polypropylene | Unilateral | Testicular volume | 3 |
Shin 2005 (IV-4) [9] | USA | LAP/Open | Case series | 12 LAP 2 Open+ LAP | 35.5 (28–42) | Polypropylene mesh | Unilateral Bilateral | Zaoospermia | 6–36 |
Nagler 2005 (V-5) [43] | USA | Open | Case report | 1 | 45 | Polypropylene mesh | Right and left herniorrhaphy | Fructose-positive azoospermia | 72 |
Akbulut 2003 (I-1b) [44] | Turkey | TEP / LHR | RCT | LHR 13 TEP 13 | TEP 46.7 ± 1.7 LHR 54.2 ± 2.6 | Polypropylene mesh | Unilateral Bilateral | Testicular function and volume | 12 |
Aydede 2003 (I-1b) [45] | Turkey | Open | RCT | Posterior preperitoneal mesh repair 30 Anterior tension-free repair 30 | 22 > 60 38 < 60 | mesh | Unilateral | Testicular flow spermatogenesis | 2.5 |
Yang 1997 (V-5) [46] | China | Open (when child) | Case report | 3 | 30/31/50 | No mesh | Unilateral Bilateral | Obstructive azoospermia | 30 year |
Quality assessment of the included studies
Study ID | Registration no. | Adequate sequence generation/scores(point) | Allocation concealment/scores(point) | Blinding/scores (point) | Follow-up/withdraw/scores(point) | Total Jada scores |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bansal 2017 [13] | CTRI009469 | Yes(2) | Yes(2) | No(0) | Yes(1) | 5 |
Peeters 2014 [28] | NCT00925067 | Yes(2) | Yes(2) | No(0) | Yes(1) | 5 |
Singh 2012 [29] | NS | Yes (2) | Yes(2) | No(0) | Yes(1) | 5 |
Peeters 2010 [10] | NCT00925067 | Yes (2) | Yes(2) | No(0) | Yes(1) | 5 |
Sucullu 2010 [35] | NS | Yes(2) | Yes(2) | No(0) | Yes(1) | 5 |
Akbulut 2003 [44] | NS | Yes (1) | Unclear(1) | No(0) | Yes(1) | 3 |
Aydede 2003 [45] | NS | Yes (2) | Yes(2) | No(0) | Yes(1) | 5 |
Descriptive analysis
Study ID | Surgery | Total No. of patients | Outcome and data | |
---|---|---|---|---|
O | C | |||
Bansal 2017 [13] | TAPP VS TEP | 80 | 80 | Testicular volume: pre-operative, TAPP 13.1 ± 1.3, TEP 13.1 ± 1.2; 3 months, TAPP 13.1 ± 1.3, TEP 13.2 ± 1.1, 6 months TAPP 13.0 ± 1.3, TEP 13.2 ± 1.0 Testicular resistivity index: pre-operative, TAPP 0.64 ± 0.06, TEP 0.61 ± 0.07; 3 months, TAPP 0.634 ± 0.06, TEP 0.6 ± 0.07, 6 months TAPP 0.63 ± 0.06, TEP 0.6 ± 0.07 Serum FSH: pre-operative, TAPP 3.6 ± 0.8, TEP 3.4 ± 0.8; 3 months, TAPP 3.6 ± 1.0, TEP 3.4 ± 0.8, 6 months TAPP 3.6 ± 0.8, TEP 3.4 ± 0.9 Serum testosterone: pre-operative, TAPP 4.2 ± 1,TEP 4.0 ± 1.2; 3 months, TAPP 4.1 ± 0.9, TEP 4.0 ± 1.3, 6 months TAPP 4.1 ± 1.0, TEP 4.0 ± 1.2 Serum LH: TAPP 7.3 ± 1.1,TEP 7.3 ± 1.7; 3 months, TAPP 7.3 ± 1.0, TEP 7.3 ± 1.67, 6 months TAPP 7.4 ± 1.0, TEP 7.3 ± 1.6 |
Peeters 2014 [28] | Marlex® VS vyproII® Marlex® VS TiMesh® | 12 | 15/10 | 3 year follow-up: Semen volume (ml): Marlex® -0.07 (− 1.1 to 0.6), vyproII® -0.1(− 1.5 to 0.2), TiMesh®-0.2 (− 0.9 to 1) Concentration (106 cells/ml): Marlex® -4.4 (− 16.1 to 0.5), vyproII® -5.5 (− 30.8 to 18.8), TiMesh®-1.65 (− 30.6 to 17.1) Motility (% progression): Marlex® -2.8 (− 18 to 4.3), vyproII® -8.5 (− 23 to 8.5), TiMesh®-8 (− 15 to − 4.5) a-glucosidase (mU): Marlex® 3.2 (− 15.5 to 6), vyproII® -5.5 (− 13.7 to 0.2), TiMesh® -1.4(− 8 to 1.75) morphology (% normal): Marlex® -2 (− 16 to 2), vyproII® -2.8 (− 9 to 0), TiMesh® -3 (− 8.5 to 4) |
Singh 2012 [29] | Lap VS Open | 60 | 60 | Testicular volume: pre-operative, Lap, 9.8; Open 10.7; 3 month, Lap 9.3, Open 9.2 Resistitive index: pre-operative, Lap 0.64, Open 0.68; 3 month, Lap 0.58, Open 0.65 FSH: pre-operative, Lap 5,Open 5.1, 3 month, Lap 5.1, Open 6.1 LH: pre-operative, Lap 4.4,Open 4.5, 3 month, Lap 4.9, Open 5.4 Testosterone: pre-operative, Lap 5.7,Open 5.2, 3 month, Lap 5.5, Open 4.7 |
Peeters 2010 [10] | Marlex® VS vyproII® Marlex® VS TiMesh® | 20 | 20/19 | 1 year follow-up: Semen volume (ml): Marlex® -0.05 (− 0.7 to 0.7), vyproII® -0.43 (− 1.3 to 0.3), TiMesh®0.2 (− 0.8 to 0.9) Concentration (106 cells/ml): Marlex® -9.6 (− 35.5 to 13), vyproII® -1.5 (− 21.5 to 10), TiMesh®2.1 (10.3 to 15.8) Motility (% progression): Marlex® -2.0 (− 2 to 10), vyproII® -9.5 (− 13.3 to − 1), TiMesh®-5.5 (− 17 to − 2) a-glucosidase (mU): Marlex® -3.6 (− 7.6 to 9.7), vyproII® -1 (− 3.7 to 3.7), TiMesh® 0(− 6.5 to 1.8) morphology (% normal): Marlex® 0 (− 4.3 to 5.8), vyproII® -1.8 (0 to − 5), TiMesh® -1.8 (− 6.8 to 5) |
Sucullu 2010 [35] | LG VS MPG | 32 | 32 | Testicular volume: pre-operative, LG, 18.92 ± 1.05; MPG, 19.37 ± 1.06 3 months, LG 18.75 ± 1.26, MPG 18.21 ± 1.26 Resistive index: pre-operative,LG,0.64 ± 0.06, MPG 0.60 ± 0.04; 3 months, LG 0.80 ± 0.06, MPG 0.75 ± 0.08 Sperm concentration: pre-operative, LG,88.65 ± 10.30, MPG 75.27 ± 7.03; 3 months, LG 65.48 ± 8.22 MPG 58.87 ± 7.73 Rate of progressive motility: pre-operative, LG 52.79 ± 2.35, MPG 51.64 ± 2.60 3 months, LG 55.54 ± 2.26, MPG 48.53 ± 2.96 |
Akbulut 2003 [44] | TEP VS LHR | 13 | 13 | 3-month. Testicular volume: pre-operative, TEP, 16.33 ± 0.71; LHR 15.44 ± 0.87; 3 month, TEP 16.70 ± 0.88, LHR 14.15 ± 0.96 FSH: pre-operative, TEP 6.47 ± 0.63, LHR 8.47 ± 1.11, 3 month, TEP 6.99 ± 0.86, LHR 9.12 ± 1.57 LH: pre-operative, TEP 4.06 ± 0.40, LHR 5.35 ± 0.57, 3 month, TEP 4.72 ± 0.70, LHR 5.64 ± 0.72 Testosterone: pre-operative, TEP 631.75 ± 60.52, LHR 544.48 ± 36.26, 3 month, TEP 672.00 ± 62.99, LHR 510.64 ± 39.71 |
Aydede 2003 [45] | TFR VS PPMR | 30 | 30 | peak systolic velocity (PSV):pre-operative TFR 11.1303 ± 0.6952, PPMR 10.25.20 ± 0.5033; 2.5 months, TFR 10.8400 ± 0.7084 PPMR 10.4890 ± 0.5194 end diastolic velocity (EDV): pre-operative TFR 3.1257 ± 0.1995, PPMR 3.0287 ± 0.5648; 2.5 months, TFR 1.4267 ± 6.544 PPMR 1.2957 ± 8.842 pulsatility index (PI): pre-operative TFR 1.3753 ± 9.177,PPMR 1.3460 ± 0.1082; 2.5 months,TFR 0.7193 ± 1.294 PPMR 0.6930 ± 1.887 resistivity index (RI): pre-operative TFR 0.6960 ± 2.192, PPMR 0.6867 ± 2.267; 2.5 months, TFR 2.8400 ± 0.1973 PPMR 3.0163 ± 0.1880 |