Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Mesh fixation methods in open inguinal hernia repair: a protocol for network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials
  1. Long Ge1,2,3,
  2. Jin-hui Tian2,3,
  3. Lun Li4,
  4. Quan Wang5,
  5. Ke-hu Yang2,3
  1. 1The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
  2. 2Evidence-based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
  3. 3Key Laboratory of Evidence-based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China
  4. 4Department of Breast-Thyroid Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China
  5. 5Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Xijing Hospital, Four Military Medical University, Xi'an, China
  1. Correspondence to Professor Ke-hu Yang; kehuyangebm2006{at}


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.


This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

View Full Text

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.