Küçük ve Orta Büyüklükteki Primer Ortahat Karın Duvarı FıtIklarında sIPOM ve IPOM-Plus Tekniklerinin Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması

Journal of contemporary medicine Pub Date : 2023-09-30 DOI:10.16899/jcm.1348372

Halil Afşin TAŞDELEN

{"title":"Küçük ve Orta Büyüklükteki Primer Ortahat Karın Duvarı FıtIklarında sIPOM ve IPOM-Plus Tekniklerinin Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması","authors":"Halil Afşin TAŞDELEN","doi":"10.16899/jcm.1348372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract  Aims: To compare the results of the standard intraperitoneal onlay mesh (sIPOM) and intraperitoneal onlay mesh-plus (IPOM-Plus) techniques for the repair of small and medium-sized primary midline abdominal wall hernias (PMAWHs). Material and Method: A prospectively documented data of 82 patients who underwent the sIPOM and IPOM-Plus approach between January 2016 and December 2021 was retrospectively evaluated. Forty-one patients with PMAWH repaired with sIPOM (18) and IPOM-Plus (23) were included in the study. Median follow-up for the sIPOM and IPOM-Plus was 73 and 51 months (mean 73.83±7.81vs. 47.43±19.22), respectively. Results: Both groups had no difference in demographics, comorbidities, and smoking habits. The mesh area (MA) and the mesh-to-defect ratio (MDR) were not significant (p=0.083 and p= 0.30, respectively); however, the defect area (DA) was higher in the sIPOM group (p= 0.005). The IPOM-Plus group had a longer operative time and length of hospital stay (LOHS) and higher early postoperative pain than the IPOM group (p = 0.002, p = 0.049 and p","PeriodicalId":15449,"journal":{"name":"Journal of contemporary medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of contemporary medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16899/jcm.1348372","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Aims: To compare the results of the standard intraperitoneal onlay mesh (sIPOM) and intraperitoneal onlay mesh-plus (IPOM-Plus) techniques for the repair of small and medium-sized primary midline abdominal wall hernias (PMAWHs). Material and Method: A prospectively documented data of 82 patients who underwent the sIPOM and IPOM-Plus approach between January 2016 and December 2021 was retrospectively evaluated. Forty-one patients with PMAWH repaired with sIPOM (18) and IPOM-Plus (23) were included in the study. Median follow-up for the sIPOM and IPOM-Plus was 73 and 51 months (mean 73.83±7.81vs. 47.43±19.22), respectively. Results: Both groups had no difference in demographics, comorbidities, and smoking habits. The mesh area (MA) and the mesh-to-defect ratio (MDR) were not significant (p=0.083 and p= 0.30, respectively); however, the defect area (DA) was higher in the sIPOM group (p= 0.005). The IPOM-Plus group had a longer operative time and length of hospital stay (LOHS) and higher early postoperative pain than the IPOM group (p = 0.002, p = 0.049 and p

查看原文本刊更多论文

sIPOM 和 IPOM-Plus 技术在中小型原发性中线腹壁疝中的效果比较

摘要# x0D;& # x0D;目的:比较标准腹腔内嵌补片(sIPOM)和腹腔内嵌补片- + (IPOM-Plus)技术在中小型原发性腹壁中线疝(PMAWHs)修复中的效果。材料和方法:回顾性评估2016年1月至2021年12月期间接受sIPOM和IPOM-Plus入路的82例患者的前瞻性记录数据。采用sIPOM(18例)和IPOM-Plus(23例)修复的PMAWH患者共41例。sIPOM和IPOM-Plus的中位随访时间分别为73和51个月(平均73.83±7.81vs)。分别为47.43±19.22),强生的# x0D;结果:两组在人口统计学、合并症和吸烟习惯方面没有差异。补片面积(MA)和补片缺损比(MDR)差异无统计学意义(p=0.083和p= 0.30);然而，sIPOM组的缺陷面积(DA)更高(p= 0.005)。与IPOM组相比，IPOM- plus组手术时间、住院时间(LOHS)更长，术后早期疼痛程度更高(p = 0.002、p = 0.049、p = 0.05)

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of contemporary medicine

自引率

0.00%

发文量