Single-side open groin hernia repair with mesh or without mesh: Which is the best?

M. Yeni, T. Kalaycı
{"title":"Single-side open groin hernia repair with mesh or without mesh: Which is the best?","authors":"M. Yeni, T. Kalaycı","doi":"10.5455/im.71060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Groin hernia repair, which is a common operation performed by general surgeons, is still a controversial issue. Although some surgeons recommend mesh repair as the gold standard, the mesh also has its complications. In this study, it was aimed to investigate whether there is an advantage of using mesh in unilateral groin hernia operations. Methods: Patients who were operated on for groin hernia with open surgery at Erzurum Regional Education and Research Hospital, Erzurum, Turkey between 2019 and 2021 were selected for the study retrospectively. After collecting data of the patients, patients were divided into two groups according to mesh usage. Differences between the group in which mesh was used and the group without mesh were evaluated. Results: 173 patients were operated on with open surgery due to groin hernia, and 163 (94.2%) were men. The mean age of all patients was 51.29±18.24 (range from 19 to 91). 84 (48.6%) patients were operated on with mesh, while 89 (51.4%) patients were operated on without mesh. The use of mesh was more common in the elderly (p<0.001). Comorbidity (p=0.042) and the need for a drainage catheter (p<0.001) were higher in the mesh group. Concomitant spermatic cord lipoma (p<0.001), length of hospital stay was longer (p=0.002) and mean rank of leucocyte count was higher (p=0.023) in the non-mesh group. In addition, the use of mesh decreased testicular complications (p=0.029). Conclusions: The use of mesh in groin hernia surgery is more preferred in elderly patients and patients with the comorbid disease, while the leukocyte count is higher and the need for additional imaging is higher in repairs performed without the use of mesh. The presence of cord lipoma during surgery was higher in surgeries without mesh, and the need for a drainage catheter was higher in the mesh group. The hospital stay was longer in cases without mesh with longer postoperative follow-up. Also, the use of mesh in cases does not affect the overall morbidity and recurrence. We emphasize that groin hernia surgeries without mesh can be performed safely like repair with mesh.","PeriodicalId":93574,"journal":{"name":"International medicine (Antioch, Turkey)","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International medicine (Antioch, Turkey)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5455/im.71060","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: Groin hernia repair, which is a common operation performed by general surgeons, is still a controversial issue. Although some surgeons recommend mesh repair as the gold standard, the mesh also has its complications. In this study, it was aimed to investigate whether there is an advantage of using mesh in unilateral groin hernia operations. Methods: Patients who were operated on for groin hernia with open surgery at Erzurum Regional Education and Research Hospital, Erzurum, Turkey between 2019 and 2021 were selected for the study retrospectively. After collecting data of the patients, patients were divided into two groups according to mesh usage. Differences between the group in which mesh was used and the group without mesh were evaluated. Results: 173 patients were operated on with open surgery due to groin hernia, and 163 (94.2%) were men. The mean age of all patients was 51.29±18.24 (range from 19 to 91). 84 (48.6%) patients were operated on with mesh, while 89 (51.4%) patients were operated on without mesh. The use of mesh was more common in the elderly (p<0.001). Comorbidity (p=0.042) and the need for a drainage catheter (p<0.001) were higher in the mesh group. Concomitant spermatic cord lipoma (p<0.001), length of hospital stay was longer (p=0.002) and mean rank of leucocyte count was higher (p=0.023) in the non-mesh group. In addition, the use of mesh decreased testicular complications (p=0.029). Conclusions: The use of mesh in groin hernia surgery is more preferred in elderly patients and patients with the comorbid disease, while the leukocyte count is higher and the need for additional imaging is higher in repairs performed without the use of mesh. The presence of cord lipoma during surgery was higher in surgeries without mesh, and the need for a drainage catheter was higher in the mesh group. The hospital stay was longer in cases without mesh with longer postoperative follow-up. Also, the use of mesh in cases does not affect the overall morbidity and recurrence. We emphasize that groin hernia surgeries without mesh can be performed safely like repair with mesh.
单侧开放式腹股沟疝补片与不补片:哪一种最好?
背景:腹股沟疝修补术是普通外科医生常用的一种手术,但至今仍是一个有争议的问题。尽管一些外科医生推荐网状修复作为金标准,但网状修复也有其并发症。在这项研究中,目的是探讨在单侧腹股沟疝手术中使用补片是否有优势。方法:回顾性研究2019 - 2021年在土耳其埃尔祖鲁姆地区教育和研究医院接受开放式手术治疗腹股沟疝的患者。收集患者资料后,根据补片使用情况将患者分为两组。评估使用补片组和不使用补片组之间的差异。结果:173例因腹股沟疝行开腹手术,其中男性163例(94.2%)。所有患者的平均年龄为51.29±18.24岁(19 ~ 91岁)。有补片者84例(48.6%),无补片者89例(51.4%)。补片的使用在老年人中更为常见(p<0.001)。合并症(p=0.042)和需要引流管(p<0.001)在补片组较高。非补片组合并精索脂肪瘤(p<0.001),住院时间更长(p=0.002),白细胞计数平均排名较高(p=0.023)。此外,网状物的使用减少了睾丸并发症(p=0.029)。结论:腹股沟疝手术中使用补片更适合老年患者和有合并症的患者,而不使用补片的患者白细胞计数更高,需要额外的影像学检查。无补片组手术中出现脐带脂肪瘤的几率更高,补片组对引流管的需求也更高。未加补片者住院时间较长,术后随访时间较长。此外,在病例中使用补片并不影响总体发病率和复发率。我们强调无补片腹股沟疝手术与补片修补术一样安全。
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