Table 2 Study characteristics, surgical details and postoperative outcomes of included conference abstracts
Study characteristics* | Surgical details | Postoperative outcomes* | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author | Country | Study period | Sample size | Mean age | Male (%) | Surgical technique | Approach | Mesh repair | Mesh position | Post- operative compl. rate | Rec. rate | Length of follow-up | Type of follow-up | Length of stay |
Antor 2017 | France | 2006–2015 | 9 | 63 (59–83) | NR | NR | Lap | Yes | Intra-peritoneal | 0% | 22% | 27 m (7–106) | Clinical + PC | 6d (4–13) |
Davis 2012 | Canada | 2005–2010 | 11 | 63.9 (47–79) | 36% | NR | Lap | Yes | NR | NR | 27% | 19.1 m (1–62) | NR | 6.3d (1–12) |
Jaipuria 2020 | India | 2018–2019 | 6 | 67 | 67% | MS | RA | Yes | Intra-peritoneal | NR | 0% | 10 m | NR | 2d |
Shakir 2020 | USA | 2017–2019 | 7 | 71 | 29% | Keyhole | RA | Yes | Intra-peritoneal | 29% | 0% | 90 d | NR | 4d |
Von Bodman 2012 | Germany | 2009–2011 | 13 | 70 | 54% | 3D funnel shape | Open | Yes | Intra-peritoneal | 31% | 8% | 23 m | Clinical + US | NR |