LAPARASCOPIC VERSUS OPEN MESH REPAIR FOR RECURRENT INGUINAL HERNIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Kevin Gabriel, Siemon Junior Berhimpon
{"title":"LAPARASCOPIC VERSUS OPEN MESH REPAIR FOR RECURRENT INGUINAL HERNIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW","authors":"Kevin Gabriel, Siemon Junior Berhimpon","doi":"10.61841/7d4qq784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Inguinal hernia is one of the most common conditions seen in clinic, and is often treated through the general surgery department. Laparoscopic repair and open repair with mesh are the typical treatments for inguinal hernia, and both regimens have proved beneficial in treating inguinal hernia. However, recurrence, with a rate as high as 33, poses a significant problem to the effective treatment of inguinal hernia.\nThe aim: This study aims to show about laparascopic versus open mesh repair for recurrent inguinal hernia. \nMethods: By comparing itself to the standards set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020, this study was able to show that it met all of the requirements. So, the experts were able to make sure that the study was as up-to-date as it was possible to be. For this search approach, publications that came out between 2013 and 2023 were taken into account. Several different online reference sources, like Pubmed and SagePub, were used to do this. It was decided not to take into account review pieces, works that had already been published, or works that were only half done. \nResult: In the PubMed database, the results of our search brought up 10 articles, whereas the results of our search on SagePub brought up 60 articles. The results of the search conducted for the last year of 2013 yielded a total 2 articles for PubMed and 14 articles for SagePub. The result from title screening, a total 1 articles for PubMed and 10 articles for SagePub. In the end, we compiled a total of 7 papers. We included five research that met the criteria. \nConclusion: The laparoscopic approach is superior to the open mesh approach for the repair of recurrent inguinal hernia in some aspects, including the incision infection rate and length of hospital stay. However, more high-quality studies on the effects of laparoscopic and open mesh repair for the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia are warranted.","PeriodicalId":507661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Research in Medical and Health Science (ISSN 2208-2425)","volume":"39 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Research in Medical and Health Science (ISSN 2208-2425)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61841/7d4qq784","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

Background: Inguinal hernia is one of the most common conditions seen in clinic, and is often treated through the general surgery department. Laparoscopic repair and open repair with mesh are the typical treatments for inguinal hernia, and both regimens have proved beneficial in treating inguinal hernia. However, recurrence, with a rate as high as 33, poses a significant problem to the effective treatment of inguinal hernia. The aim: This study aims to show about laparascopic versus open mesh repair for recurrent inguinal hernia. Methods: By comparing itself to the standards set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020, this study was able to show that it met all of the requirements. So, the experts were able to make sure that the study was as up-to-date as it was possible to be. For this search approach, publications that came out between 2013 and 2023 were taken into account. Several different online reference sources, like Pubmed and SagePub, were used to do this. It was decided not to take into account review pieces, works that had already been published, or works that were only half done. Result: In the PubMed database, the results of our search brought up 10 articles, whereas the results of our search on SagePub brought up 60 articles. The results of the search conducted for the last year of 2013 yielded a total 2 articles for PubMed and 14 articles for SagePub. The result from title screening, a total 1 articles for PubMed and 10 articles for SagePub. In the end, we compiled a total of 7 papers. We included five research that met the criteria. Conclusion: The laparoscopic approach is superior to the open mesh approach for the repair of recurrent inguinal hernia in some aspects, including the incision infection rate and length of hospital stay. However, more high-quality studies on the effects of laparoscopic and open mesh repair for the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia are warranted.
腹腔镜与开放式网片修补术治疗复发性腹股沟疝:系统性综述
背景:腹股沟疝是临床上最常见的疾病之一,通常由普外科负责治疗。腹腔镜修补术和带网片的开放式修补术是腹股沟疝的典型治疗方法,这两种方法都被证明对治疗腹股沟疝有益。然而,腹股沟疝的复发率高达 33%,给腹股沟疝的有效治疗带来了严重问题。目的:本研究旨在说明腹腔镜与开放式网片修补术治疗复发性腹股沟疝的效果。方法:通过与《2020 年系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(PRISMA)所设定的标准进行比较,本研究能够证明其符合所有要求。因此,专家们能够确保该研究尽可能是最新的。在这种搜索方法中,2013 年至 2023 年间发表的出版物被纳入考虑范围。为此,我们使用了多个不同的在线参考资料来源,如 Pubmed 和 SagePub。决定不考虑评论文章、已发表的作品或仅完成一半的作品。结果在 PubMed 数据库中,我们的搜索结果为 10 篇文章,而在 SagePub 上的搜索结果为 60 篇文章。对 2013 年最后一年的搜索结果显示,PubMed 上共有 2 篇文章,SagePub 上共有 14 篇文章。标题筛选结果显示,PubMed 上共有 1 篇文章,SagePub 上共有 10 篇文章。最后,我们共整理出 7 篇论文。我们收录了五项符合标准的研究。结论在修复复发性腹股沟疝方面,腹腔镜方法在切口感染率和住院时间等方面优于开放式网片方法。然而,还需要对腹腔镜和开放式网片修补术治疗复发性腹股沟疝的效果进行更多高质量的研究。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信