Table 1

Study characteristics^*

Study/year/ country	No. of patients	Age, yr, mean ± SD	Operative time, min, mean ±_SD	No. (%) with wound infection	No. (%) with wound dehiscence	No. (%) with hematoma formation	No. (%) with seroma formation	Type of drain	Length of hospital stay, d, mean ±_SD	Time to return to work, d, mean ± SD	Patient satisfaction rate, mean score ± SD or no. (%)	No. (%) with recurrence
Ahmed et al.,22 2017, Pakistan	75	32.2 ± 9.8	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Redivac	3.97 ± 0.71	15.53 ± 1.22	NR	NR
	75	33.6 ± 9.7							2.93 ± 0.66	13.13 ± 1.15
		p = 0.2							p < 0.001	p < 0.001

Khan et al.,21 2016, Pakistan^†	90	42.7 ± 14	NR	11 (12)	NR	NR	6 (7)	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	90	43.4 ± 16		30 (33)			20 (22)
		p = 0.2		p = 0.001			p = 0.003

Bali et al.,20 2015, Turkey	37	25 ± 5	54 ± 5	4 (11)	1 (3)	8 (22)	3 (8)	B-Vak	1.44 ± 0.5	8 ± 1.5	2.88 ± 0.16	0 (0)
	34	24 ± 5	48 ± 5	8 (24)	2 (6)	3 (9)	4 (12)		3 ± 0.75	17 ± 1.5	1.43 ± 0.4	0 (0)
		p = 0.2	p = 0.001	p = 0.001	p = 0.6	p = 0.004	p = 0.8		p = 0.001	p < 0.001	p < 0.001

Tokac et al.,19 2015, Turkey^†	46	29.28 ± 85	44.5 ± 6.6	3 (7)	NR	NR	NR	Placed, type NR	1.06 ± 0.3	20.61 ± 7.89	NR	3 (7)
	46	28.35 ± 85	42.9 ± 6.2	3 (7)					1.03 ± 0.17	23.29 ± 6.42		2 (4)
		p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05					p > 0.05	p < 0.05		p > 0.05

Arslan et al.,18 2014, Turkey^‡	96	26.5 ± 5.9	51.1 ± 6.8	2 (2)	2 (2)	4 (4)	5 (5)	Jackson-Pratt	1.3 ± 0.5	20.8 ± 6.5	71 (74)	6 (6)
	91	24.7 ± 5.1	50.9 ± 7.3	6 (7)	14 (15)	3 (3)	18 (20)		1.3 ± 0.4	19.1 ± 3.4	64 (70)	10 (11)
		p = 0.08	p = 0.08	p < 0.05	p < 0.001	p = 0.9	p < 0.05		p = 0.5	p = 0.7	p = 0.8	p = 0.003

Arslan et al.,18 2014, Turkey^†	108	24.7 ± 5.1	52.9 ± 7.3	5 (5)	4 (4)	3 (3)	8 (7)	Jackson-Pratt	1.3 ± 0.4	19.8 ± 4.6	84 (78)	2 (2)
	91	24.7 ± 5.1	50.9 ± 7.3	6 (7)	14 (15)	3 (3)	18 (20)		1.3 ± 0.4	19.1 ± 3.4	64 (70)	10 (11)
		p = 1.0	p = 0.08	p = 0.3	p < 0.002	p = 1.0	p = 0.002		p = 1.0	p = 1.0	p = 0.7	p = 0.002

Bessa,17 2013, Egypt^†	60	23 ± 2.25	52 ± 3.5	3 (5)	11 (18)	NR	0 (0)	18 French	NR	NR	43 (72)	2 (3)
	60	23 ± 6.25	33 ± 3	2 (3)	6 (10)		3 (5)				58 (97)	1 (2)
		p = 0.4	p = 0.001	p = 1.0	p = 0.003		p = 0.2					p = 0.6

Ates et al.,16 2011, Turkey	134	NR	50.14 ± 6.964	8 (6)	14 (10)	3 (2)	3 (2)	Placed, type NR	3.80 ± 1.19	8.55 ± 1.18	3.16 ± 1.40	9 (7)
	134		2.32 ± 8.64	4 (3)	8 (6)	1 (1)	1 (1)		3.40 ± 0.94	8.45 ± 1.16	7.08 ± 1.7	4 (3)
			p = 0.001			p = 0.9	p = 0.9		p = 0.03	p = 0.5	p = 0.001

Can et al.,15 2010, Turkey^†	77	22 ± 5.25	52.8 ± 16 4	3 (4)	1 (1)	1 (1)	3 (4)	On surgeon’s preference	4.8 ± 2.6	21.5 ± 8.5	70 (91)	4 (5)
	68	22 ± 2.75	0.4 ± 2.5	3 (4)	1 (1)	1 (1)	3 (4)		5.5 ± 2	18.8 ± 7.7	60 (88)	3 (4)
		p = 0.6	p = 0.01	p = 1.0	p = 1.0	p = 1.0	p = 1.0		p = 0.1	p = 0.09	p = 1.0	p = 1.0

Ersoy et al.,14 2009, Turkey	50	27.8 ± 6.5	NR	4 (8)	NR	NR	NR	Placed, type NR	NR	14 ± 10.25	NR	NR
	50	25.8 ± 6.4		13 (26)						15 ± 10
				p = 0.02						p = 0.3

Pooled difference (n = 1421)	773 648	MD 0.47 (95% CI 0.18 to 1.11)	MD 7.00 (95% CI 0.53 to 13.48)	OR 0.6 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.4)	OR 0.60 (95% CI 0.20 to 1.81)	OR 1.6 (95% CI 0.76 to 3.51	OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.56)	—	MD −0.07 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.30)	MD 0.33 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.66)	OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.34 to 2.01)	OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.38 to 2.04)

CI = confidence interval; MD = mean difference; NR = not reported; OR = odds ratio; SD = standard deviation.
↵* Throughout table, first value is for Limberg flap, second value is for Karydakis flap.
↵† Modified Limberg flap.
↵‡ Standard Limberg flap.