Open Emergent Groin Hernia Repair: Anterior or Posterior Approach?

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY
V Rodrigues-Gonçalves, M Verdaguer, M Moratal, R Blanco, A Bravo-Salva, J A Pereira-Rodíguez, M López-Cano
{"title":"Open Emergent Groin Hernia Repair: Anterior or Posterior Approach?","authors":"V Rodrigues-Gonçalves, M Verdaguer, M Moratal, R Blanco, A Bravo-Salva, J A Pereira-Rodíguez, M López-Cano","doi":"10.3389/jaws.2022.10586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> The current literature has not yet provided a definitive conclusion on the best emergency groin hernia repair. The aim of this study was first to compare the short and long-term outcomes between open preperitoneal and anterior approach in emergency groin hernia repair and second to identify risk factors for postoperative complications, mortality, and recurrence. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent emergency groin hernia repair between January 2010 and December 2018. Short and long-term outcomes were analyzed comparing approach and repair techniques. The predictors of complications and mortality were investigated using multivariate logistic regression. Cox regression multivariate analysis were used to explore risk factors of recurrence. <b>Results:</b> A total of 316 patients met the inclusion criteria. The most widely used surgical techniques were open preperitoneal mesh repair (34%) and mesh plug (34%), followed by Lichtenstein (19%), plug and patch (7%) and tissue repair (6%). Open preperitoneal mesh repair was associated with lower rates of recurrence (<i>p</i> = 0.02) and associated laparotomies (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Complication and 90-day mortality rate was similar between the techniques. Multivariable analysis identified patients aged 75 years or older (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.14-3.80; <i>p</i> = 0.016) and preoperative bowel obstruction (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.20-3.70; <i>p</i> = 0.010) as risk factors for complications and Comprehensive Complication Index ≥26.2 as risk factor for 90-day mortality (OR, 44.76; 95% CI, 4.51-444.59; <i>p</i> = 0.01). Female gender was the only risk factor for recurrence. <b>Conclusion:</b> Open preperitoneal mesh repair may be superior to other techniques in the emergency setting, because it can avoid the morbidity of associated laparotomies, with a lower long-term recurrence rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":34200,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10831659/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/jaws.2022.10586","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The current literature has not yet provided a definitive conclusion on the best emergency groin hernia repair. The aim of this study was first to compare the short and long-term outcomes between open preperitoneal and anterior approach in emergency groin hernia repair and second to identify risk factors for postoperative complications, mortality, and recurrence. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent emergency groin hernia repair between January 2010 and December 2018. Short and long-term outcomes were analyzed comparing approach and repair techniques. The predictors of complications and mortality were investigated using multivariate logistic regression. Cox regression multivariate analysis were used to explore risk factors of recurrence. Results: A total of 316 patients met the inclusion criteria. The most widely used surgical techniques were open preperitoneal mesh repair (34%) and mesh plug (34%), followed by Lichtenstein (19%), plug and patch (7%) and tissue repair (6%). Open preperitoneal mesh repair was associated with lower rates of recurrence (p = 0.02) and associated laparotomies (p < 0.001). Complication and 90-day mortality rate was similar between the techniques. Multivariable analysis identified patients aged 75 years or older (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.14-3.80; p = 0.016) and preoperative bowel obstruction (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.20-3.70; p = 0.010) as risk factors for complications and Comprehensive Complication Index ≥26.2 as risk factor for 90-day mortality (OR, 44.76; 95% CI, 4.51-444.59; p = 0.01). Female gender was the only risk factor for recurrence. Conclusion: Open preperitoneal mesh repair may be superior to other techniques in the emergency setting, because it can avoid the morbidity of associated laparotomies, with a lower long-term recurrence rate.

开腹急诊腹股沟疝修补术:前路还是后路?
介绍:关于腹股沟疝的最佳急诊修补术,目前的文献尚未给出明确结论。本研究的目的首先是比较腹膜前开腹手术和前路手术在急诊腹股沟疝修补术中的短期和长期疗效,其次是确定术后并发症、死亡率和复发的风险因素。材料和方法:这项回顾性队列研究纳入了 2010 年 1 月至 2018 年 12 月间接受急诊腹股沟疝修补术的患者。对短期和长期结果进行了比较分析。采用多变量逻辑回归研究了并发症和死亡率的预测因素。Cox回归多变量分析用于探究复发的风险因素。结果:共有 316 名患者符合纳入标准。最广泛使用的手术技术是开放式腹膜前网片修补术(34%)和网塞(34%),其次是Lichtenstein(19%)、网塞和修补术(7%)以及组织修补术(6%)。开放式腹膜前网片修复术的复发率(p = 0.02)和相关开腹手术率(p < 0.001)较低。两种技术的并发症和 90 天死亡率相似。多变量分析发现,75 岁或以上患者(OR,2.08;95% CI,1.14-3.80;p = 0.016)和术前肠梗阻(OR,2.11;95% CI,1.20-3.70;p = 0.010)是并发症的风险因素,综合并发症指数≥26.2 是 90 天死亡率的风险因素(OR,44.76;95% CI,4.51-444.59;p = 0.01)。女性是复发的唯一风险因素。结论在急诊情况下,开放式腹膜前网片修补术可能优于其他技术,因为它可以避免相关开腹手术的发病率,而且长期复发率较低。
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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