Our findings demonstrated that TAPP repair did not have higher rate of morbidity or hernia recurrence and is an equivalent approach to open repair, with the advantages of faster recovery and reduced paraesthesia.

The provision of analgesia using continuous bilateral intercostal blockade was compared with that provided by conventional i.v. narcotics for the first 48 h after cardiac surgery. The subjective quality of analgesia was significantly superior with the regional technique. However, pulmonary function tests, gas exchange, lung volume, and radiological and clinical evidence of pulmonary complications were not improved. The failure to reduce morbidity and the potential for complications such as pneumothorax, makes it difficult to recommend the regional analgesia technique in this situation.

BackgroundPolymer-free drug-eluting stents (PF-DES) were introduced with the aim of reducing the risk of stent thrombosis associated with durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). The comparison of safety and efficacy profiles between these two stent platforms remains unclear.Materials and methodsWe conducted electronic database searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients treated with either PF-DES or DP-DES. Outcomes included definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, all-cause death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A random-effects model was used to derive risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses based on different variables were also performed. After screening a total of 1026 articles, the present meta-analysis included 13 RCTs comprising 8021 patients.ResultsNo significant differences were found for the risks of definite or probable ST (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.62–1.43; P = 0.77), MI (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85–1.33; P = 0.61), cardiac death (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80–1.21; P = 0.88), all-cause death (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76–1.00; P = 0.06), TLR (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94–1.33; P = 0.22), and TVR (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.87–1.61; P = 0.29). Similarly, no significant differences were found for all outcomes regardless of anti-proliferative drug, except for an increased risk of TLR for polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stents compared with DP-DES (RR, 2.32, 95% CI, 1.30–4.14; P = 0.005).ConclusionsOur findings showed that PF-DES and DP-DES confer equivalent safety and efficacy profiles, with similar rates of stent thrombosis.

No abstract

AimsBiodegradable polymer drug‐eluting stents (BP‐DES) were developed in hopes of reducing the risk of stent thrombosis. The comparison of this new stent platform with second‐generation durable polymer drug‐eluting stents (DP‐DES) has not been well described. We, therefore, performed a meta‐analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles of BP‐DES versus second‐generation DP‐DES in patients with coronary artery disease.Methods and ResultsElectronic database searches were conducted, from their dates of inception to June 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients with either BP‐DES or second‐generation DP‐DES. Risk estimates were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed a landmark analysis beyond 1 year and sensitivity analyses based on different variables. A total of 24,406 patients from 19 RCTs were included in the present meta‐analysis. There were no significant differences between BP‐DES and second‐generation DP‐DES for the risks of definite or probable stent thrombosis (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69–1.12; P = 0.29), myocardial infarction (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86–1.09; P = 0.59), cardiac death (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92–1.28; P = 0.34), all‐cause death (RR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91–1.13; P = 0.77), target lesion revascularization (RR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94–1.17; P = 0.38), and target vessel revascularization (RR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95–1.16; P = 0.36). Similar outcomes were observed regardless of anti‐proliferative drug and duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (all P > 0.05).ConclusionOur findings demonstrate similar safety and efficacy profiles between BP‐DES and second‐generation BP‐DES, with comparable rates of stent thrombosis.