Mesh repair of incisional hernia: comparison of laparoscopic and open repair.

Riet M van't, W W Vrijland, J F Lange, W C J Hop, J Jeekel, H J Bonjer
{"title":"Mesh repair of incisional hernia: comparison of laparoscopic and open repair.","authors":"Riet M van't,&nbsp;W W Vrijland,&nbsp;J F Lange,&nbsp;W C J Hop,&nbsp;J Jeekel,&nbsp;H J Bonjer","doi":"10.1080/000000000000003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare our results of open and laparoscopic mesh repair of incisional hernias.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Teaching hospitals, The Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>All patients who had had a laparoscopic (n = 25) or an open (n = 76) mesh repair of incisional hernia between January 1996 and January 2000.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Physical examination at the time of the study.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Morbidity and recurrence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The groups were comparable. 11 patients (14%) developed postoperative infections after open repair and 1 (4%) after laparoscopic repair (p = 0.29). Median hospital stay was 5 days (range 1-19) in the open group and 4 (range 1-11) in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.28). The 2-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 18% after open repair (median follow-up of 17 months (range 1-46) and 15% after laparoscopic repair (median follow-up of 15 months, range 1-44). Recurrences in the laparoscopic group were all among the first 7 cases in which the mesh was fixed with staples alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were fewer infections and hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group, but not significantly so. Recurrence rates were comparable.</p>","PeriodicalId":22411,"journal":{"name":"The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica","volume":"168 12","pages":"684-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/000000000000003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

Abstract

Objective: To compare our results of open and laparoscopic mesh repair of incisional hernias.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Teaching hospitals, The Netherlands.

Subjects: All patients who had had a laparoscopic (n = 25) or an open (n = 76) mesh repair of incisional hernia between January 1996 and January 2000.

Interventions: Physical examination at the time of the study.

Main outcome measures: Morbidity and recurrence.

Results: The groups were comparable. 11 patients (14%) developed postoperative infections after open repair and 1 (4%) after laparoscopic repair (p = 0.29). Median hospital stay was 5 days (range 1-19) in the open group and 4 (range 1-11) in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.28). The 2-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 18% after open repair (median follow-up of 17 months (range 1-46) and 15% after laparoscopic repair (median follow-up of 15 months, range 1-44). Recurrences in the laparoscopic group were all among the first 7 cases in which the mesh was fixed with staples alone.

Conclusion: There were fewer infections and hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group, but not significantly so. Recurrence rates were comparable.

切口疝腹腔镜修补术与开放式修补术的比较。
目的:比较开放式与腹腔镜补片修补切口疝的效果。设计:回顾性队列研究。环境:教学医院,荷兰。对象:所有于1996年1月至2000年1月间行腹腔镜或开放式补片修补切口疝的患者(25例)。干预措施:研究开始时进行体格检查。主要观察指标:发病率和复发率。结果:两组具有可比性。开放性修复术后感染11例(14%),腹腔镜修复术后感染1例(4%)(p = 0.29)。开放组中位住院时间为5天(1 ~ 19天),腹腔镜组中位住院时间为4天(1 ~ 11天)(p = 0.28)。开放性修复术后2年累计复发率为18%(中位随访17个月(1-46个月)),腹腔镜修复术后2年累计复发率为15%(中位随访15个月,1-44个月)。腹腔镜组的复发率均在前7例只用订书钉固定补片的病例中。结论:腹腔镜组感染少,住院时间短,但差异不显著。复发率具有可比性。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信