Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2026 review

Efficacy and safety of mesh reinforced cruroplasty with Phasix™ ST vs. Bio-A®: systematic review and bayesian meta-analysis

0Citations signalées — pas une note de qualité
4Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: Recurrence remains a major challenge after minimally invasive hiatus hernia (HH) repair, particularly in patients with large diaphragmatic defects. Currently, biosynthetic absorbable meshes such as Bio-A® and Phasix™ ST are widely used to reinforce cruroplasty, however evidence comparing their efficacy and safety profile remains limited. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of Bio-A® versus Phasix™ ST after minimally invasive HH repair through a Bayesian meta-analysis. METHODS: Systematic search across online databases up to November 2025 was performed. Inclusion criteria targeted elective minimally invasive HH repairs with Bio-A® or Phasix™ ST mesh. Primary outcome was radiologically or endoscopically confirmed anatomical HH recurrence. Overall, severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), mesh-related complications and reoperation for recurrence were secondary outcomes. A Bayesian hierarchical power prior model was utilised to pool data from both comparative and single-arm studies. RESULTS: Twenty-one observational studies (2208 patients) were included. Bio-A® was used in 53.1% of cases. The overall recurrence rate was 8.2% (n = 170 patients), with a clinical trend toward higher recurrence for Bio-A® vs. Phasix™ ST mesh (10% vs. 6%). The Bayesian meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference for Bio-A® vs. Phasix™ ST (RR = 1.29, 95% HPD 0.01–8.15). Notably, 38 over 170 patients (17%) required reoperation for HH recurrence with a trend toward higher rates for Bio-A® vs. PhasixTM (36.3% vs. 19.3%). Overall (RR = 1.16, 95% HPD 0.01–8.75) and severe postoperative complications (RR = 1.06, 95% HPD 0.01–12.33) were comparable. Mesh-related complication with esophageal fibrosis occurred in one Bio-A® patient (0.04%). CONCLUSION: Bio-A® and Phasix™ ST synthetic absorbable meshes seem safe and effective for hiatal reinforcement with apparently similar rates of recurrence and postoperative morbidity. The choice between these materials should be guided by surgeon preferences and cost-effectiveness.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Efficacy and safety of mesh reinforced cruroplasty with Phasix™ ST vs. Bio-A®: systematic review and bayesian meta-analysis
Date Crossref
15/04/2026
Éditeur
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Sujets associés

Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsTrauma Management and Diagnosis

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Recherche à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé ; OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant requis, aucune donnée externe enregistrée en base. Sources et limites.