best evidence in awr understanding level 1 2 studies n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
“Best Evidence” in AWR Understanding Level 1 & 2 Studies PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
“Best Evidence” in AWR Understanding Level 1 & 2 Studies

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 34

“Best Evidence” in AWR Understanding Level 1 & 2 Studies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 65 Views
  • Uploaded on

“Best Evidence” in AWR Understanding Level 1 & 2 Studies. A Park MD, FRCSC, FACS University of Maryland Baltimore,MD. Overview:. Getting on the same page- reviewing terms What is the evidence in AWR? Mesh versus suture repair? Laparoscopic versus open?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '“Best Evidence” in AWR Understanding Level 1 & 2 Studies' - zita


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
best evidence in awr understanding level 1 2 studies

“Best Evidence” in AWRUnderstanding Level 1 & 2 Studies

A Park MD, FRCSC, FACS

University of Maryland

Baltimore,MD

overview
Overview:
  • Getting on the same page- reviewing terms
  • What is the evidence in AWR?
  • Mesh versus suture repair?
  • Laparoscopic versus open?
  • Onlay/Inlay versus Underlay?
  • Transfacial fixation of mesh versus none ?
  • Mixing it up a bit
  • Take away
what is evidence based medicine
What is Evidence Based Medicine?
  • “Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.”

Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, www.cebm.net

integration of ebm consort criteria
Integration of EBM- CONSORT criteria

EBM

RTC

Cohort

Case-control

Case series

Expert opinion

a versus b designation
A versus B designation
  • A – Meta-analyses
  • B – Individual studies
incisional hernia repair ihr
Incisional Hernia Repair (IHR)
  • Incisional Hernia is common (10-20 % of laparotomy incisions)
  • Morbidity (& mortality) still not insignificant
  • IHR associated with high rates of recurrence (estimates based on 10 year follow up)
  • Primary repair – 63%
  • Tension-free repair – 32%

Mudge M, et al. Br J Surg 1985;72:70-71

Burger JW, et al. Ann Surg 2004;240:578-585.

level 1b evidence of mesh vs suture repair
Level 1B Evidence of Mesh vs. Suture Repair
  • 181 patients with primary hernia or first hernia recurrence randomized to suture or mesh repair
  • All hernias 6 cm or less
  • Up to 36 month follow-up (mean 26 months)

Luijendijk et al. NEJM 2000 Aug 10;343(6):392-8.

level 1b evidence of mesh vs suture repair1
Level 1B Evidence of Mesh vs. Suture Repair

Luijendijk et al. NEJM 2000 Aug 10;343(6):392-8.

level 1a evidence mesh vs suture repair
Level 1A Evidence Mesh vs. Suture repair
  • Data source
  • MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1990 to 2007
  • Study selection resulted in 7 RCTs
  • 1,141 patients
  • Data from three trials comparing mesh vs. suture repair pooled

den Hartog, et al. Cochrane Database 2008, Issue 3, art. No. CD006438

level 1a evidence of mesh versus suture repair
Level 1A Evidence of Mesh versus Suture repair
  • Conclusion:
  • Tension free mesh repair is superior to primary repair for recurrence, inferior for infection

Den Hartog, et al. Cochrane Database 2008, Issue 3, art. No. CD006438

onlay inlay versus underlay technique
Onlay/Inlay versus Underlay technique
  • Level 1A Evidence- den Hartog, et al. study again
  • Meta-analysis of 7 RCTs
  • 1,141 patients

den Hartog, et al. Cochrane Database 2008, Issue 3, art. No. CD006438

level 1a evidence of underlay vs overlay
Level 1A Evidence of Underlay vs. Overlay
  • Conclusion:
  • Insufficient evidence as to which type of mesh or which mesh position (on or sublay) should be used.

den Hartog, et al. Cochrane Database 2008, Issue 3, art. No. CD006438

newer level 2b evidence
(Newer) Level 2B Evidence
  • Multicenter (VA) retrospective cohort study
  • 1,346 patients
  • Elective IHR at 16 VA hospitals
  • 31% primary closure, 30% open onlay, 30% open underlay, 9% laparoscopic
  • 6 year follow up

Hawn M, et al. J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:648-657.

level 2b evidence
Level 2B Evidence

Hawn M, et al. J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:648-657.

newer level 2b evidence1
(Newer) Level 2B Evidence
  • Conclusions: Underlay technique – open or laparoscopic – decreases recurrence without increasing risk of infection

Hawn M, et al. J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:648-657.

slide16
(Arch Surg 2002)
  • 8 studies (1 randomized, 7 cohort)
  • All paired studies
  • 712 patients (322 LVHR; 390 OVHR)
  • No gender preponderance
  • 2 studies with > previous repairs in LVHR group
complications
Complications

X

  • LVHR 14% vs 27%
  • LVHR Total complication 58% less likely

From: Goodney PP et al. Arch Surg 2002;137:1161-5

conclusions
Conclusions
  • LVHR offers:
    • < Total Complications
    • < LOS
    • = OR time
open versus laparoscopic repair
Open versus Laparoscopic Repair
  • Level 1A Evidence - Forbes SS, et al.
  • Data source- MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, meeting abstracts between January 1950 and January 2009
  • Study selection- Meta-analysis of 8(from 237 citations &13 studies)RCTs → 526 patients

Forbes SS, et al. Br J of Surg 2009;96:851-8.

open versus laparoscopic repair1
Open versus Laparoscopic Repair
  • Data Extraction – intention to treat study design, technique described, mesh AND defect size
  • Outcomes: hernia recurrence, duration of surgery, LOS, time until return to work, complications

Forbes SS, et al. Br J of Surg 2009;96:851-8.

level 1a evidence of open v lap
Level 1A Evidence of Open v. Lap
  • Conclusion: laparoscopic repair is at least effective, if not superior to, open tension-free repair
  • Shorter hospital stay
  • Fewer wound infections
  • Trends:
  • fewer hemorrhagic complications
  • fewer infections requiring mesh removal
  • NO difference in recurrence rates

Forbes SS et al. Br J Surg 2009;96:851-858.

slide22
Laparoscopic vs open repair of incisional/ventral hernia: a meta-analysis(Sajid MS,Bokhari S et al Am J Surg 2009)
  • All studies on lap & open I/VHR 1993-2007
  • 5 studies (from 1044 citations ,10 trials) met inclusion criteria- 366 pts
  • Targeted outcomes- OR time
  • - LOS
  • - complications & pain
  • -recurrences
causes of heterogeneity
Causes of “Heterogeneity”
  • Methodologic:
  • Different techniques of randomization
  • No allocation concealment in all trials
  • Not all analyzed on “intent to treat”
  • Different incl & excl criteria
  • Sample size calculation varied (never met!)
causes of heterogeneity1
Causes of “Heterogeneity”
  • Clinical:
  • Technical variables- # and pos’n of ports
  • - mesh type (even PP),placement and fixation (some vs no transfascial)
  • - surgeon & institutional experience
  • - hernia size
  • Mix of primary/recurrent…variable f/u
  • Different outcome variables assessed
conclusions sajid et al
Conclusions (Sajid et al)
  • Laparoscopic Repair of I/VH (vs open):
  • Shorter LOS
  • Fewer periop complications
  • Shorter OR time
  • Recurrence rates and post op pain not significantly different
suture fixation vs tacks alone
Suture fixation vs. tacks alone
  • Meta-analysis of prospective AND retrosepctive studies- between Level 1 and 2A
  • 35 studies
  • 545 patients had no sutures
  • 10 recurrences (1.8%)

LeBlanc KA. Surg Endosc 2007;21:508-13.

suture fixation vs tacks alone1
Suture fixation vs. tacks alone

LeBlanc KA. Surg Endosc 2007;21:508-13.

suture fixation vs tacks alone2
Suture fixation vs. tacks alone
  • Highly variable use of sutures
  • Technique NOT standardized
  • Overlap 2.5-5cm
  • Spacing 5cm?
  • Extremely difficult to draw meaningful conclusion

LeBlanc KA. Surg Endosc 2007;21:508-13.

laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair a comparison study

Laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair: a comparison study

A Park MD

D Birch MD

P Lovrics MD

(Central Surgical 1996)

slide30

Patient Characteristics

  • No. of Patients
  • Sex (M/F)
  • Mean (range) age in yr
  • Mean (range) ASA score
  • Incisional hernia data
  • Lateral
  • Central/Midline
  • Upper abdomen
  • Lower abdomen
  • First repair
  • Previous repair
  • Laparoscopic
  • 56
  • 30/26
  • 58.8 (25-84)
  • 2.1 (1-3)
  • 8
  • 33
  • 9
  • 5
  • 40
  • 16
  • Open
  • 49
  • 23/26
  • 58.5 (35-82)
  • 2.2 (1-3)
  • 14
  • 32
  • 22
  • 9
  • 40
  • 9
  • p
  • NS
  • NS
  • NS
  • NS
  • NS
  • NS
  • NS
laparoscopic ventral hernia repair experience over 9 years and 850 cases

Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: Experience over 9 years and 850 cases

B. Todd Heniford MD

A. Park MD

Bruce J. Ramshaw MD

Guy R. Voeller MD

(American Surgical Assoc’n 2003)

study background
Study Background
  • Evaluate efficacy of LVH repair.
  • Prospective, consecutive series.
  • 4 Surgeons
  • Consistent technique & perioperative regimen.
  • Standardized F/U protocol: 2-4 weeks, 3mos, 6mos, yearly.
summary of ebm
Summary of EBM
  • EBM is based on Levels characterizing the strength of evidence
  • Dependent on high quality smaller studies
  • Subject to statistical influence
  • “Study of studies”(armchair q’backing?)
  • Original studies –heavier lifting, must be done
  • DME & methodologists need to step up…
summary of awr
Summary of AWR
  • Mesh reduces recurrences
  • Laparoscopy at least as good as open – better for LOS and infection
  • Data suggests underlay technique reduces recurrences