TACKoMesh - 一项随机对照试验,比较腹腔镜 IPOM + 原发性切口疝修补术中可吸收与不可吸收的粘扣带固定,并评估术后疼痛和生活质量 - Reliatack™ 与 Protack™。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Hernia Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-23 DOI:10.1007/s10029-024-03111-y
J James Pilkington, James Pritchett, Catherine Fullwood, Annie Herring, Fiona L Wilkinson, Aali Jan Sheen
{"title":"TACKoMesh - 一项随机对照试验,比较腹腔镜 IPOM + 原发性切口疝修补术中可吸收与不可吸收的粘扣带固定,并评估术后疼痛和生活质量 - Reliatack™ 与 Protack™。","authors":"J James Pilkington, James Pritchett, Catherine Fullwood, Annie Herring, Fiona L Wilkinson, Aali Jan Sheen","doi":"10.1007/s10029-024-03111-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is a clinical need to better understand and improve post-operative pain for patients undergoing laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia. The aim of this single-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was to compare post-operative pain between absorbable and non-absorbable tack fixation in patients undergoing IPOM + repair. Patients with primary incisional hernia (size 3-10 cm), were randomised to either Reliatack™ (n = 27), an articulating-arm device deploying absorbable polymer tacks, or Protack™ (n = 36), a straight-arm device deploying permanent titanium tacks. The primary outcome was reported pain on activity using a visual analogue scale at post-operative day 30. Clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed pre-operatively (day 0), and at 1-, 6-, 30- and 365-days post-surgery. No significant differences in reported pain 'on activity' were found at any timepoint. Less reported pain 'at rest' was found on post-operative day-1 with absorbable tacks (p = 0.020). Significantly longer mesh-fixation time (p < 0.001) and the use of more knots for fascial closure (p = 0.006) and tacks for mesh-fixation (p = 0.001) were found for the absorbable tack group. There were no differences in other clinical and PROMs between groups. For the whole trial cohort (n = 63) several domains in the Short-Form-36 showed a reduction from baseline scores at day 30 that improved at day 365. At post-operative day 30, 75.0% of patients reported 'a lot of pain' since discharge. This study found no difference in reported pain when choosing absorbable or non-absorbable tack fixation. The utility of \"early\" post-operative pain assessment as a comparator following incisional hernia repair needs clarification.</p>","PeriodicalId":13168,"journal":{"name":"Hernia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457574/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"TACKoMesh - A randomised controlled trial comparing absorbable versus non-absorbable tack fixation in laparoscopic IPOM + repair of primary incisional hernia using post-operative pain and quality of life - Reliatack™ versus Protack™.\",\"authors\":\"J James Pilkington, James Pritchett, Catherine Fullwood, Annie Herring, Fiona L Wilkinson, Aali Jan Sheen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10029-024-03111-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There is a clinical need to better understand and improve post-operative pain for patients undergoing laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia. The aim of this single-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was to compare post-operative pain between absorbable and non-absorbable tack fixation in patients undergoing IPOM + repair. Patients with primary incisional hernia (size 3-10 cm), were randomised to either Reliatack™ (n = 27), an articulating-arm device deploying absorbable polymer tacks, or Protack™ (n = 36), a straight-arm device deploying permanent titanium tacks. The primary outcome was reported pain on activity using a visual analogue scale at post-operative day 30. Clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed pre-operatively (day 0), and at 1-, 6-, 30- and 365-days post-surgery. No significant differences in reported pain 'on activity' were found at any timepoint. Less reported pain 'at rest' was found on post-operative day-1 with absorbable tacks (p = 0.020). Significantly longer mesh-fixation time (p < 0.001) and the use of more knots for fascial closure (p = 0.006) and tacks for mesh-fixation (p = 0.001) were found for the absorbable tack group. There were no differences in other clinical and PROMs between groups. For the whole trial cohort (n = 63) several domains in the Short-Form-36 showed a reduction from baseline scores at day 30 that improved at day 365. At post-operative day 30, 75.0% of patients reported 'a lot of pain' since discharge. This study found no difference in reported pain when choosing absorbable or non-absorbable tack fixation. The utility of \\\"early\\\" post-operative pain assessment as a comparator following incisional hernia repair needs clarification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hernia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457574/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hernia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03111-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hernia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03111-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床上需要更好地了解和改善腹腔镜切口疝修补术患者的术后疼痛。这项单中心、双盲、随机对照试验的目的是比较接受 IPOM + 修补术的患者在可吸收和不可吸收粘性固定之间的术后疼痛。原发性切口疝(3-10 厘米大小)患者被随机分配到Reliatack™(n = 27)和Protack™(n = 36)中,前者是一种使用可吸收聚合物大头针的关节臂装置,后者是一种使用永久性钛大头针的直臂装置。主要结果是术后第 30 天使用视觉模拟量表报告的活动疼痛。对术前(第 0 天)、术后 1 天、6 天、30 天和 365 天的临床和患者报告结果指标 (PROM) 进行了评估。在任何时间点,"活动时 "的疼痛报告均无明显差异。术后第 1 天,使用可吸收粘合剂的患者报告的 "休息时 "疼痛较轻(p = 0.020)。网片固定时间明显更长(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

TACKoMesh - A randomised controlled trial comparing absorbable versus non-absorbable tack fixation in laparoscopic IPOM + repair of primary incisional hernia using post-operative pain and quality of life - Reliatack™ versus Protack™.

TACKoMesh - A randomised controlled trial comparing absorbable versus non-absorbable tack fixation in laparoscopic IPOM + repair of primary incisional hernia using post-operative pain and quality of life - Reliatack™ versus Protack™.

There is a clinical need to better understand and improve post-operative pain for patients undergoing laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia. The aim of this single-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was to compare post-operative pain between absorbable and non-absorbable tack fixation in patients undergoing IPOM + repair. Patients with primary incisional hernia (size 3-10 cm), were randomised to either Reliatack™ (n = 27), an articulating-arm device deploying absorbable polymer tacks, or Protack™ (n = 36), a straight-arm device deploying permanent titanium tacks. The primary outcome was reported pain on activity using a visual analogue scale at post-operative day 30. Clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed pre-operatively (day 0), and at 1-, 6-, 30- and 365-days post-surgery. No significant differences in reported pain 'on activity' were found at any timepoint. Less reported pain 'at rest' was found on post-operative day-1 with absorbable tacks (p = 0.020). Significantly longer mesh-fixation time (p < 0.001) and the use of more knots for fascial closure (p = 0.006) and tacks for mesh-fixation (p = 0.001) were found for the absorbable tack group. There were no differences in other clinical and PROMs between groups. For the whole trial cohort (n = 63) several domains in the Short-Form-36 showed a reduction from baseline scores at day 30 that improved at day 365. At post-operative day 30, 75.0% of patients reported 'a lot of pain' since discharge. This study found no difference in reported pain when choosing absorbable or non-absorbable tack fixation. The utility of "early" post-operative pain assessment as a comparator following incisional hernia repair needs clarification.

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
Hernia
Hernia SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
26.10%
发文量
171
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Hernia was founded in 1997 by Jean P. Chevrel with the purpose of promoting clinical studies and basic research as they apply to groin hernias and the abdominal wall . Since that time, a true revolution in the field of hernia studies has transformed the field from a ”simple” disease to one that is very specialized. While the majority of surgeries for primary inguinal and abdominal wall hernia are performed in hospitals worldwide, complex situations such as multi recurrences, complications, abdominal wall reconstructions and others are being studied and treated in specialist centers. As a result, major institutions and societies are creating specific parameters and criteria to better address the complexities of hernia surgery. Hernia is a journal written by surgeons who have made abdominal wall surgery their specific field of interest, but we will consider publishing content from any surgeon who wishes to improve the science of this field. The Journal aims to ensure that hernia surgery is safer and easier for surgeons as well as patients, and provides a forum to all surgeons in the exchange of new ideas, results, and important research that is the basis of professional activity.
×
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