Non-fixation versus fixation of mesh in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ChenXin Zhang; Jia Li; HaiJin Suo; JianPing Bai

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314334

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 16, 2024
22 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Lovenish Bains, Editor PONE-D-24-23572Non-fixation versus fixation of mesh in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. bai, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Lovenish Bains, MS, FNB, FACS, FRCS (Glas), FICS, FIAGES Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript presents a meta-analysis comparing non-fixation versus fixation of mesh in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair. It is generally clear to read, though some subheadings and references need formatting adjustments as per journal standards. Statistical methods need clarification regarding cases converted to open surgery, and consistency in pain evaluation scoring across studies. Detailed postoperative complication descriptions and inclusion of patient numbers per study in Table 1 would enhance clarity. Addressing hernia defect size in both discussion and conclusion sections is crucial. Overall, despite heterogeneous data, the paper with revision can provide useful insights. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have done meta analysis of Non-fixation versus fixation of mesh in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia The manuscript is well written with some grammar corrections at certain places References need to be modified as per journal criteria figures and tables adequate Reviewer #2: Dear Author, The paper is lucidly written and I enjoyed reading it, except that some subheadings are starting with small letters. Also, few reference may need formatting according to the specifications. Kindly correct few formatting and grammatical mistakes. All the very best. Thank you Reviewer #3: Fifteen cases were converted from Laproscopy to open. How were the statistical calculations done, in view of this observation? Were the scoring for pain evaluation identical for all studies? Individual Post operative complication description in detail would be more beneficial Reviewer #4: Thanks to the Authors for this interesting and well conducted paper. I would like to make the following considerations. It could be useful to add in table 1 the number of patients for each study. The third included study, Kalidarei B et al, has patients with recurrent inguinal hernia, please could the Authors briefly specify whether after surgery with (open, TEP or TAPP) or without mesh. Moreover, were these patients excluded from recurrence rate analysis? Although only two studies detailed the size of hernia defect, as properly reported in the discussion (line 368-370), the same clarification should be used in the conclusion when the Authors assert that non-fixation “does not increase recurrence rate”. Reviewer #5: Your paper is interesting and well written. Unfortunately, as you highlighted, data from Literature are heterogeneous and for several aspects is difficult to draw a conclusion. Your efforts are appreciable and the results, although partial, are interesting. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof Amit Gupta Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Megha Tandon Reviewer #3: Yes: Veena KL Karanth Reviewer #4: Yes: Andrea Avanzolini, MD Reviewer #5: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314334.r001
Revision 1
29 Aug 2024 Author Response Response to reviewers: Reviewer 1： Reviewer point #1: References need to be modified as per journal criteria. Author response #1: Thanks for your instruction. We have checked and modified the format of reference to meet journal standards. Reviewer 2： Reviewer point #1: The paper is lucidly written and I enjoyed reading it, except that some subheadings are starting with small letters. Also, few reference may need formatting according to the specifications. Author response #1: Thank you for your comment. And we apologize for our carelessness. These errors have been modified in the revised manuscript (Line 227, Line 253, Line 260, Line 263). The references had been checked and modified. Reviewer 3： Reviewer point #1: Fifteen cases were converted from Laproscopy to open. How were the statistical calculations done, in view of this observation? Author response #1: Thank you for your careful review. We checked the original study. The fifteen cases which were converted from Laproscopy to open were all included in statistical calculations for outcomes such as recurrence, seroma formation. Reviewer point #2: Were the scoring for pain evaluation identical for all studies? Author response #2: Thank you for your careful review. The scoring for pain evaluation was identical in five included studies. We have added the detailed description of pain evaluation in outcomes section (Line 213-216). Reviewer point #3: Individual Post operative complication description in detail would be more beneficial. Author response #3: Thank you for your instructive suggestion. We have added individual postoperative complication descriptions in Table 2. Reviewer 4： Reviewer point #1: It could be useful to add in table 1 the number of patients for each study. Author response #1: Thank you for your instructive suggestion. We have added the patient number of each study in Table 1. Reviewer point #2: The third included study, Kalidarei B et al, has patients with recurrent inguinal hernia, please could the Authors briefly specify whether after surgery with (open, TEP or TAPP) or without mesh. Moreover, were these patients excluded from recurrence rate analysis? Author response #2: Thank you for your careful review. We checked the original study. We had made a mistake that the study of Kalidarei et al. [1] did not include patients of recurrent inguinal hernia. Their criteria for inclusion were “patients within the age range of 18–50 years, those with inguinal hernia, those with no history of inguinal hernial repair surgery, and those with laparotomy and strangulated or incarcerated hernia participated in the study”. We are very sorry for this careless mistake. We have made modification in the revised manuscript (Line 163-164, Table 1). [1] Kalidarei B, Mahmoodieh M, Sharbu Z. Comparison of mesh fixation and nonfixation in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia. Formosan Journal of Surgery 2019;52: 212-220. Reviewer point #3: Although only two studies detailed the size of hernia defect, as properly reported in the discussion (line 368-370), the same clarification should be used in the conclusion when the Authors assert that non-fixation “does not increase recurrence rate”. Author response #3: Thank you for your instruction. We have modified the conclusion to make it more accurate (Line 64-65, Line 379-381). Reviewer 5: Reviewer point #1: Your paper is interesting and well written. Unfortunately, as you highlighted, data from Literature are heterogeneous and for several aspects is difficult to draw a conclusion. Your efforts are appreciable and the results, although partial, are interesting. Author response #1: Thank you for your comment. The heterogeneity of the data from the included studies did cause difficulties in synthetic analysis. We tried our best to make accurate conclusions, which may be interesting for surgeons in this field. Academic Editor: Reviewer point #1: Statistical methods need clarification regarding cases converted to open surgery, and consistency in pain evaluation scoring across studies. Author response #1: Thank you for your careful instruction. We reviewed the study conducted by Habeeb et al. [2] carefully. They provided the causes of converting to open surgery (adhesion in the pelvis or endometriosis in the pelvis). However, they did not provide any other details of these cases, such as which study group they came from. The fifteen cases which were converted from Laproscopy to open were all included in statistical calculations for outcomes of that study. We have modified the description of pain evaluation scoring across studies in outcomes section (Line 213-216) to clarify the consistency. Four studies with available pain score data all used the same Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scale. [2] Habeeb T, Mokhtar MM, Sieda B, Osman G, Ibrahim A, Metwalli AM, et al. Changing the innate consensus about mesh fixation in trans-abdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty in adults: Short and long term outcome. Randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Surg 2020;83: 117-124. Reviewer point #2: Detailed postoperative complication descriptions and inclusion of patient numbers per study in Table 1 would enhance clarity. Author response #2: Thank you for your instructive suggestion. We have added the patient numbers for each study in Table 1. Considering the gist of each table, we have added postoperative complication descriptions in Table 2. Reviewer point #3: Addressing hernia defect size in both discussion and conclusion sections is crucial. Author response #3: Thank you for your instruction. Hernia defect size is an important parameter for evaluating inguinal hernia. It is always taken into account in the treatment of hernias. Unfortunately, only two of the studies in our meta-analysis reported hernia defect size. This is indeed a limitation of our study. We have modified the conclusion to make it more accurate (Line 64-65, Line 379-381). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314334.r002
11 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Antoine Naem, Editor Non-fixation versus fixation of mesh in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials PONE-D-24-23572R1 Dear Dr. bai, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Antoine Naem, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: All the suggestions have been incorporated by the authors The tables have been modified as per suggestions References have been modified as per journal criteria Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #4: Thanks to the Authors for taking into consideration the comments and for the efforts in order to enhance the paper. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Amit Gupta Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Megha Tandon Reviewer #4: Yes: Andrea Avanzolini, MD ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314334.r003
Formally Accepted
27 Nov 2024 Acceptance Letter - Antoine Naem, Editor PONE-D-24-23572R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bai, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Antoine Naem Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314334.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .