使用 Desarda 技术与 Lichtenstein 技术修复单侧腹股沟疝:最新系统回顾和元分析

IF 0.4 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Shajie Ur Rehman Usmani, Syed Muhammad Moaaz Bin Sultan, Amna Zia Ul Haq, Afia Salman, Sana Kazmi, Muhammad Saad Choudhry
{"title":"使用 Desarda 技术与 Lichtenstein 技术修复单侧腹股沟疝:最新系统回顾和元分析","authors":"Shajie Ur Rehman Usmani, Syed Muhammad Moaaz Bin Sultan, Amna Zia Ul Haq, Afia Salman, Sana Kazmi, Muhammad Saad Choudhry","doi":"10.1007/s12262-024-04124-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of the non-mesh Desarda technique (DT) with the mesh-based Lichtenstein technique (LT) for the repair of unilateral inguinal hernia. A meta-analysis was performed on the Desarda group (DG) and Lichtenstein group (LG) studies. A detailed literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for comparative studies between Lichtenstein and Desarda techniques for the repair of unilateral inguinal hernia. The data for the primary outcomes and one secondary outcome, i.e., time taken to return to normal gait, was reported in the form of mean difference with 95% confidence interval, and inverse variance was used as the statistical method. For the remaining secondary outcomes, Mantel–Haenszel was used as the statistical method. The effect measure was reported as a risk ratio at a confidence interval of 95%. There was no significant difference in seroma formation, recurrence, postoperative infection, scrotal edema formation, hematoma formation, time taken to return to normal gait, and foreign body sensation between the two groups. A significant difference was seen in the duration of hospital stay (MD = − 0.97, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.00001, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 95%), intraoperative time (MD = − 8.75, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.00001, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 100%), and time taken to return to normal activities (MD = − 2.19, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.00001, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 92%), all in the favor of DG. DT was found to be superior to LT in terms of reducing duration of hospital stay, intraoperative time, and time taken to return to normal activities. For the remaining outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":13391,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of the Desarda Technique versus the Lichtenstein Technique for the Repair of Unilateral Inguinal Hernia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Shajie Ur Rehman Usmani, Syed Muhammad Moaaz Bin Sultan, Amna Zia Ul Haq, Afia Salman, Sana Kazmi, Muhammad Saad Choudhry\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12262-024-04124-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of the non-mesh Desarda technique (DT) with the mesh-based Lichtenstein technique (LT) for the repair of unilateral inguinal hernia. A meta-analysis was performed on the Desarda group (DG) and Lichtenstein group (LG) studies. A detailed literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for comparative studies between Lichtenstein and Desarda techniques for the repair of unilateral inguinal hernia. The data for the primary outcomes and one secondary outcome, i.e., time taken to return to normal gait, was reported in the form of mean difference with 95% confidence interval, and inverse variance was used as the statistical method. For the remaining secondary outcomes, Mantel–Haenszel was used as the statistical method. The effect measure was reported as a risk ratio at a confidence interval of 95%. There was no significant difference in seroma formation, recurrence, postoperative infection, scrotal edema formation, hematoma formation, time taken to return to normal gait, and foreign body sensation between the two groups. A significant difference was seen in the duration of hospital stay (MD = − 0.97, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.00001, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 95%), intraoperative time (MD = − 8.75, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.00001, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 100%), and time taken to return to normal activities (MD = − 2.19, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.00001, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 92%), all in the favor of DG. DT was found to be superior to LT in terms of reducing duration of hospital stay, intraoperative time, and time taken to return to normal activities. For the remaining outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-024-04124-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-024-04124-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本荟萃分析旨在比较无网Desarda技术(DT)和有网Lichtenstein技术(LT)在修复单侧腹股沟疝方面的有效性。对 Desarda 组(DG)和 Lichtenstein 组(LG)的研究进行了荟萃分析。我们在 PubMed、Scopus 和 Google Scholar 上对 Lichtenstein 和 Desarda 技术修复单侧腹股沟疝的比较研究进行了详细的文献检索。主要结果和一个次要结果(即恢复正常步态所需时间)的数据以平均差和 95% 置信区间的形式报告,统计方法为反方差法。其余次要结果采用曼特尔-海恩泽尔统计方法。效果测量值以风险比报告,置信区间为 95%。两组患者在血清肿形成、复发、术后感染、阴囊水肿形成、血肿形成、恢复正常步态所需时间和异物感方面无明显差异。在住院时间(MD = - 0.97,p < 0.00001,I2 = 95%)、术中时间(MD = - 8.75,p < 0.00001,I2 = 100%)和恢复正常活动所需时间(MD = - 2.19,p < 0.00001,I2 = 92%)方面,两组均有明显差异,均有利于 DG。在缩短住院时间、术中时间和恢复正常活动所需时间方面,DT优于LT。在其余结果方面,两组之间没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Use of the Desarda Technique versus the Lichtenstein Technique for the Repair of Unilateral Inguinal Hernia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Use of the Desarda Technique versus the Lichtenstein Technique for the Repair of Unilateral Inguinal Hernia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of the non-mesh Desarda technique (DT) with the mesh-based Lichtenstein technique (LT) for the repair of unilateral inguinal hernia. A meta-analysis was performed on the Desarda group (DG) and Lichtenstein group (LG) studies. A detailed literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for comparative studies between Lichtenstein and Desarda techniques for the repair of unilateral inguinal hernia. The data for the primary outcomes and one secondary outcome, i.e., time taken to return to normal gait, was reported in the form of mean difference with 95% confidence interval, and inverse variance was used as the statistical method. For the remaining secondary outcomes, Mantel–Haenszel was used as the statistical method. The effect measure was reported as a risk ratio at a confidence interval of 95%. There was no significant difference in seroma formation, recurrence, postoperative infection, scrotal edema formation, hematoma formation, time taken to return to normal gait, and foreign body sensation between the two groups. A significant difference was seen in the duration of hospital stay (MD = − 0.97, p < 0.00001, I2 = 95%), intraoperative time (MD = − 8.75, p < 0.00001, I2 = 100%), and time taken to return to normal activities (MD = − 2.19, p < 0.00001, I2 = 92%), all in the favor of DG. DT was found to be superior to LT in terms of reducing duration of hospital stay, intraoperative time, and time taken to return to normal activities. For the remaining outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
412
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Indian Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the Association of Surgeons of India that considers for publication articles in all fields of surgery. Issues are published bimonthly in the months of February, April, June, August, October and December. The journal publishes Original article, Point of technique, Review article, Case report, Letter to editor, Teachers and surgeons from the past - A short (up to 500 words) bio sketch of a revered teacher or surgeon whom you hold in esteem and Images in surgery, surgical pathology, and surgical radiology. A trusted resource for peer-reviewed coverage of all types of surgery Provides a forum for surgeons in India and abroad to exchange ideas and advance the art of surgery The official publication of the Association of Surgeons of India 92% of authors who answered a survey reported that they would definitely publish or probably publish in the journal again The Indian Journal of Surgery offers peer-reviewed coverage of all types of surgery. The Journal publishes Original articles, Points of technique, Review articles, Case reports, Letters, Images and brief biographies of influential teachers and surgeons. The Journal spans General Surgery, Pediatric Surgery, Neurosurgery, Plastic Surgery, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Vascular Surgery, Rural Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery, Urology, Surgical Oncology, Radiology, Anaesthesia, Trauma Services, Minimal Access Surgery, Endocrine Surgery, GI Surgery, ENT, Colorectal Surgery, surgical practice and research. The Journal provides a forum for surgeons from India and abroad to exchange ideas, to propagate the advancement of science and the art of surgery and to promote friendship among surgeons in India and abroad. This has been a trusted platform for surgons in communicating up-to-date scientific informeation to the community.
×
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