Meta-analysis of RCTs on the safety of non-fixation of mesh in TAPP inguinal hernia repair: an updated meta-analysis

Table 2 The results of the subgroup analysis based on different fixation methods

		Number of	Sample	Heterogeneity test results
Outcome	Subgroup	studies	size	P-value	I² Value	Effect model	Meta-analysis results
Seroma occurrence rate	Invasive mesh fixation	[14, 17,18,19, 21]	1256	0.78	0	Fixed	RR = 0.58, 95% CI (0.27, 1.26), P = 0.17
	Non-invasive mesh fixation	4 [14,15,16,17]	734	0.03	79	Random	RR = 0.36, 95% CI (0.01, 10.39), P = 0.55
Overall complication rate	Invasive mesh fixation	4 [14, 20,21,22]	720	0.04	64	Random	RR = 0.91, 95% CI (0.62, 1.32), P = 0.62
	Non-invasive mesh fixation	3 [14,15,16]	202	0.93	0	Fixed	RR = 0.77, 95% CI (0.36, 1.65), P = 0.50
Overall infection event rate	Invasive mesh fixation	5 [17,18,19, 21, 22]	1290	0.55	0	Fixed	RR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.33, 2.33), P = 0.80
	Non-invasive mesh fixation	3 [15,16,17]	688	Not estimable	Not estimable	Not estimable	Not estimable
Recurrence rate	Invasive mesh fixation	7 [14, 17,18,19,20,21,22]	1432	0.30	18	Fixed	RR = 0.85, 95% CI (0.28, 2.62), P = 0.78
	Non-invasive mesh fixation	4 [14,15,16,17]	734	0.56	0	Fixed	RR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.14, 3.58), P = 0.68

ISSN: 1471-2482