腹膜内补片修复小腹疝的前瞻性观察研究:为什么开放优于腹腔镜方法。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Harshal Padekar, Vinaya Ambore, Aishwarya Dutt, Kashif Ansari, Supriya Bhondve, Amit Vishwas Dashputra, Rajalakshmi Venkateswaran, Ameya Tibude, Sachin Sholapur
{"title":"腹膜内补片修复小腹疝的前瞻性观察研究:为什么开放优于腹腔镜方法。","authors":"Harshal Padekar, Vinaya Ambore, Aishwarya Dutt, Kashif Ansari, Supriya Bhondve, Amit Vishwas Dashputra, Rajalakshmi Venkateswaran, Ameya Tibude, Sachin Sholapur","doi":"10.4103/jmas.jmas_247_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>With the ever-increasing demand for laparoscopic hernia repair, it is important to scrutinise the benefit in terms of recurrence, pain and cosmesis with the open technique for small ventral hernias. The objective is to compare the outcomes of open and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for small ventral hernias (defect size <3 cm).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A prospective analysis of patients who underwent surgical mesh repair for ventral hernias with defects smaller than 3 cm between January 2021 and September 2022. Ventral patch composite mesh (VentralexTM) and composite Prolene-cellulose mesh (ProceedTM) were utilised. We collected and analysed patient characteristics, operative findings and post-operative data, including recurrence rates, pain scores and cosmetic satisfaction over a 12-month follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 116 patients included in the study, 54 underwent laparoscopic IPOM repair, while 62 underwent open IPOM repair. The laparoscopic group had an average hernia defect size of 2.7 cm (±0.3), while for the open repair group, it was 2.4 cm (±0.4). The duration of open repair was notably shorter than that of laparoscopic repair (54 min [±16] vs. 94 min [±27]; P = 0.001). Postoperatively, there were significant differences between the groups in terms of VAS scale pain score on post-operative day 1 ([7 ± 2 vs. 4 ± 2]; P = 0.008). Eight cases developed surgical site infections requiring oral antibiotics in the open group, whereas the laparoscopic group had 3 cases (P = 0.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Open IPOM repair can be considered as a favourable option for ventral hernias <3 cm when compared to laparoscopic IPOM repair, primarily due to its shorter operative time, ease of spinal anaesthesia, single incision, shorter learning curve and absence of risks associated with port-site hernias. Higher initial pain in the laparoscopic group can be attributed to the use of absorbable tacks and transfascial sutures. No discernible disparities were observed in terms of chronic pain or recurrence rates between these surgical approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":48905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A prospective observational study on intraperitoneal mesh repair for small ventral hernias: Why open prevails over laparoscopic approach.\",\"authors\":\"Harshal Padekar, Vinaya Ambore, Aishwarya Dutt, Kashif Ansari, Supriya Bhondve, Amit Vishwas Dashputra, Rajalakshmi Venkateswaran, Ameya Tibude, Sachin Sholapur\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jmas.jmas_247_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>With the ever-increasing demand for laparoscopic hernia repair, it is important to scrutinise the benefit in terms of recurrence, pain and cosmesis with the open technique for small ventral hernias. The objective is to compare the outcomes of open and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for small ventral hernias (defect size <3 cm).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A prospective analysis of patients who underwent surgical mesh repair for ventral hernias with defects smaller than 3 cm between January 2021 and September 2022. Ventral patch composite mesh (VentralexTM) and composite Prolene-cellulose mesh (ProceedTM) were utilised. We collected and analysed patient characteristics, operative findings and post-operative data, including recurrence rates, pain scores and cosmetic satisfaction over a 12-month follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 116 patients included in the study, 54 underwent laparoscopic IPOM repair, while 62 underwent open IPOM repair. The laparoscopic group had an average hernia defect size of 2.7 cm (±0.3), while for the open repair group, it was 2.4 cm (±0.4). The duration of open repair was notably shorter than that of laparoscopic repair (54 min [±16] vs. 94 min [±27]; P = 0.001). Postoperatively, there were significant differences between the groups in terms of VAS scale pain score on post-operative day 1 ([7 ± 2 vs. 4 ± 2]; P = 0.008). Eight cases developed surgical site infections requiring oral antibiotics in the open group, whereas the laparoscopic group had 3 cases (P = 0.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Open IPOM repair can be considered as a favourable option for ventral hernias <3 cm when compared to laparoscopic IPOM repair, primarily due to its shorter operative time, ease of spinal anaesthesia, single incision, shorter learning curve and absence of risks associated with port-site hernias. Higher initial pain in the laparoscopic group can be attributed to the use of absorbable tacks and transfascial sutures. No discernible disparities were observed in terms of chronic pain or recurrence rates between these surgical approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_247_24\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_247_24","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导论:随着腹腔镜疝修补术的需求不断增加,仔细研究腹腔镜疝修补术在复发、疼痛和美容方面的益处是很重要的。目的是比较开放和腹腔镜腹腔内补片(IPOM)修复小腹疝(缺陷大小)的结果(患者和方法):对2021年1月至2022年9月期间接受手术补片修复缺陷小于3cm的腹疝患者进行前瞻性分析。采用腹侧补片复合网片(VentralexTM)和复合丙烯-纤维素网片(ProceedTM)。在12个月的随访期间,我们收集并分析了患者特征、手术结果和术后数据,包括复发率、疼痛评分和美容满意度。结果:116例患者中,54例行腹腔镜IPOM修复术,62例行开放式IPOM修复术。腹腔镜组平均疝缺损大小为2.7 cm(±0.3),开腹修补组平均疝缺损大小为2.4 cm(±0.4)。开放式修复时间明显短于腹腔镜修复时间(54 min[±16]vs. 94 min[±27]);P = 0.001)。术后,两组患者术后第1天VAS疼痛评分差异有统计学意义([7±2比4±2];P = 0.008)。开放组8例发生手术部位感染,需口服抗生素治疗,腹腔镜组3例(P = 0.6)。结论:开放式IPOM修补术是治疗腹疝的一种较好的选择
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A prospective observational study on intraperitoneal mesh repair for small ventral hernias: Why open prevails over laparoscopic approach.

Introduction: With the ever-increasing demand for laparoscopic hernia repair, it is important to scrutinise the benefit in terms of recurrence, pain and cosmesis with the open technique for small ventral hernias. The objective is to compare the outcomes of open and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for small ventral hernias (defect size <3 cm).

Patients and methods: A prospective analysis of patients who underwent surgical mesh repair for ventral hernias with defects smaller than 3 cm between January 2021 and September 2022. Ventral patch composite mesh (VentralexTM) and composite Prolene-cellulose mesh (ProceedTM) were utilised. We collected and analysed patient characteristics, operative findings and post-operative data, including recurrence rates, pain scores and cosmetic satisfaction over a 12-month follow-up period.

Results: Among the 116 patients included in the study, 54 underwent laparoscopic IPOM repair, while 62 underwent open IPOM repair. The laparoscopic group had an average hernia defect size of 2.7 cm (±0.3), while for the open repair group, it was 2.4 cm (±0.4). The duration of open repair was notably shorter than that of laparoscopic repair (54 min [±16] vs. 94 min [±27]; P = 0.001). Postoperatively, there were significant differences between the groups in terms of VAS scale pain score on post-operative day 1 ([7 ± 2 vs. 4 ± 2]; P = 0.008). Eight cases developed surgical site infections requiring oral antibiotics in the open group, whereas the laparoscopic group had 3 cases (P = 0.6).

Conclusion: Open IPOM repair can be considered as a favourable option for ventral hernias <3 cm when compared to laparoscopic IPOM repair, primarily due to its shorter operative time, ease of spinal anaesthesia, single incision, shorter learning curve and absence of risks associated with port-site hernias. Higher initial pain in the laparoscopic group can be attributed to the use of absorbable tacks and transfascial sutures. No discernible disparities were observed in terms of chronic pain or recurrence rates between these surgical approaches.

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
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Minimal Access Surgery (JMAS), the official publication of Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons, launched in early 2005. The JMAS, a quarterly publication, is the first English-language journal from India, as also from this part of the world, dedicated to Minimal Access Surgery. The JMAS boasts an outstanding editorial board comprising of Indian and international experts in the field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信