Abstract

Objective: To compare the synthetic and biological meshes in hernia repair, with a particular focus on postoperative outcomes, complications, and long-term results.
Methodology: The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines to systematically analyze research conducted between 2010 and 2024. The research included 12 studies that examined postoperative recovery times, infection rates, seroma occurrences, and recurrence rates for biological and synthetic meshes in hernia repair. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, while the GRADE criteria were used to determine the evidence level.
Results: The review analyzed 12 studies which included various combinations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and retrospective reviews. The studies varied in sample size (70 to 439 patients). The study revealed that use of both types of meshes effectively reduced postoperative hernia recurrence (39.7% biological mesh and 21.9% synthetic mesh). Risk of Bias assessment showed that seven studies had low risk while five studies had moderate risk due to complete outcome reporting faults and possible selection biases. Statistical analysis found synthetic meshes demonstrated a reduction of complications by 15% but individual studies reported varying results.
Conclusion: Combining personal treatment strategies that include synthetic and biological meshes produces the best results for patient recovery together with reduced procedure complications.

Key words: Hernia repair, synthetic mesh, biological mesh, postoperative recovery, surgical site infections (SSIs).