使用轻型补片的利希滕斯坦修补术与腹腔镜下使用聚丙烯补片的全腹股沟疝修补术:一项随机研究

Sanjay Gupta, S. Goyal, Rajeev Sharma, A. Attri
{"title":"使用轻型补片的利希滕斯坦修补术与腹腔镜下使用聚丙烯补片的全腹股沟疝修补术:一项随机研究","authors":"Sanjay Gupta, S. Goyal, Rajeev Sharma, A. Attri","doi":"10.4103/ssj.ssj_27_19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: With the introduction of mesh for repair of inguinal hernia, the focus of surgeons has shifted to postoperative pain and quality of life (QOL). As compared to open procedures, laparoscopic procedures have been found to be associated with less pain and faster recovery. The present study was designed to assess whether this holds true when open Lichtenstein repair is done using lightweight mesh (LWM) because, in previous studies where laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is compared to open Lichtenstein repair, heavyweight mesh (HWM) was used for both techniques. HWM was used for total extraperitoneal (TEP) in the current study because of higher recurrence associated with LWM. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized study was done on 60 patients divided into two groups: the Lichtenstein group and the TEP group. Patients were followed at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months for any postoperative complication. QOL was assessed using hernia-specific Carolinas Comfort Scale. Results: No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups with regard to various postoperative complications. Only one recurrence was detected at 1 month in TEP group. The mean groin pain was significantly less in TEP group at 24 h, 1 week, and 1 month (P < 0.05). The sensation of mesh was significantly less in Lichtenstein group at 24 h and 1 week (P ≤ 0.001) but comparable to TEP at 1 month and 6 months. The difference in movement limitation was not significant at any time between the two groups. Conclusion: Except for less pain in the early postoperative period TEP does not offer any advantage and Lichtenstein repair using LWM can still be considered as the best option for inguinal hernia repair, especially in countries where resources are limited.","PeriodicalId":420307,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Surgical Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lichtenstein repair using lightweight mesh versus laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair using polypropylene mesh in patients with inguinal hernia: A randomized study\",\"authors\":\"Sanjay Gupta, S. Goyal, Rajeev Sharma, A. Attri\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ssj.ssj_27_19\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: With the introduction of mesh for repair of inguinal hernia, the focus of surgeons has shifted to postoperative pain and quality of life (QOL). As compared to open procedures, laparoscopic procedures have been found to be associated with less pain and faster recovery. The present study was designed to assess whether this holds true when open Lichtenstein repair is done using lightweight mesh (LWM) because, in previous studies where laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is compared to open Lichtenstein repair, heavyweight mesh (HWM) was used for both techniques. HWM was used for total extraperitoneal (TEP) in the current study because of higher recurrence associated with LWM. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized study was done on 60 patients divided into two groups: the Lichtenstein group and the TEP group. Patients were followed at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months for any postoperative complication. QOL was assessed using hernia-specific Carolinas Comfort Scale. Results: No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups with regard to various postoperative complications. Only one recurrence was detected at 1 month in TEP group. The mean groin pain was significantly less in TEP group at 24 h, 1 week, and 1 month (P < 0.05). The sensation of mesh was significantly less in Lichtenstein group at 24 h and 1 week (P ≤ 0.001) but comparable to TEP at 1 month and 6 months. The difference in movement limitation was not significant at any time between the two groups. Conclusion: Except for less pain in the early postoperative period TEP does not offer any advantage and Lichtenstein repair using LWM can still be considered as the best option for inguinal hernia repair, especially in countries where resources are limited.\",\"PeriodicalId\":420307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Saudi Surgical Journal\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Saudi Surgical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ssj.ssj_27_19\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Surgical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ssj.ssj_27_19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:随着补片在腹股沟疝修补术中的应用,外科医生的关注点已经转移到术后疼痛和生活质量(QOL)上。与开放式手术相比,腹腔镜手术疼痛更少,恢复更快。本研究旨在评估当使用轻型补片(LWM)进行开放式Lichtenstein修复时,这是否成立,因为在先前的研究中,腹腔镜腹股沟疝修复与开放式Lichtenstein修复相比较,重型补片(HWM)用于两种技术。由于与LWM相关的高复发率,本研究将HWM用于总腹膜外(TEP)。材料与方法:本前瞻性随机研究将60例患者分为两组:Lichtenstein组和TEP组。术后随访时间分别为1周、1个月和6个月。使用疝气特异性卡罗莱纳舒适量表评估生活质量。结果:两组术后各种并发症比较,差异无统计学意义。TEP组1个月复发1例。TEP组患者24 h、1周、1个月的平均腹股沟疼痛明显减轻(P < 0.05)。Lichtenstein组在24 h和1周的补片感觉明显低于TEP (P≤0.001),但与TEP在1个月和6个月的补片感觉相当。在任何时候,两组之间的运动限制差异均不显著。结论:除了术后早期疼痛减轻外,TEP没有任何优势,LWM的Lichtenstein修复仍可被认为是腹股沟疝修复的最佳选择,特别是在资源有限的国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lichtenstein repair using lightweight mesh versus laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair using polypropylene mesh in patients with inguinal hernia: A randomized study
Background: With the introduction of mesh for repair of inguinal hernia, the focus of surgeons has shifted to postoperative pain and quality of life (QOL). As compared to open procedures, laparoscopic procedures have been found to be associated with less pain and faster recovery. The present study was designed to assess whether this holds true when open Lichtenstein repair is done using lightweight mesh (LWM) because, in previous studies where laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is compared to open Lichtenstein repair, heavyweight mesh (HWM) was used for both techniques. HWM was used for total extraperitoneal (TEP) in the current study because of higher recurrence associated with LWM. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized study was done on 60 patients divided into two groups: the Lichtenstein group and the TEP group. Patients were followed at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months for any postoperative complication. QOL was assessed using hernia-specific Carolinas Comfort Scale. Results: No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups with regard to various postoperative complications. Only one recurrence was detected at 1 month in TEP group. The mean groin pain was significantly less in TEP group at 24 h, 1 week, and 1 month (P < 0.05). The sensation of mesh was significantly less in Lichtenstein group at 24 h and 1 week (P ≤ 0.001) but comparable to TEP at 1 month and 6 months. The difference in movement limitation was not significant at any time between the two groups. Conclusion: Except for less pain in the early postoperative period TEP does not offer any advantage and Lichtenstein repair using LWM can still be considered as the best option for inguinal hernia repair, especially in countries where resources are limited.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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