社区医院腹腔镜疝修补术与传统开放式修补术比较。

J J Lukaszczyk, R J Preletz, G J Morrow, M K Lange, T J Tachovsky, J M Krall
{"title":"社区医院腹腔镜疝修补术与传统开放式修补术比较。","authors":"J J Lukaszczyk,&nbsp;R J Preletz,&nbsp;G J Morrow,&nbsp;M K Lange,&nbsp;T J Tachovsky,&nbsp;J M Krall","doi":"10.1089/lps.1996.6.203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over a 2-year period 157 inguinal hernias in 151 patients were consecutively entered in this descriptive, observational study to determine any difference in outcome between a laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair versus an open inguinal hernia repair in a community hospital setting. The laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal technique was utilized in 50 cases. A conventional open repair was used in 107 cases. There were statistically significant differences when the laparoscopic and open groups were compared for the number of days until driving a car (p < 0.01), the number of days until getting in and out of bed comfortably (p = 0.01), the number of days until working on a limited basis (p = 0.01), and the number of days until working on a full-time basis (p < 0.05), although these differences may be due to confounding factors in this nonrandomized study. The average length of operating time was 72.2 min laparoscopic versus 51.6 min open (p < 0.001). We have shown that laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs may have benefits over conventional hernia repairs. This may make its use more widespread than it has already become.</p>","PeriodicalId":77211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of laparoendoscopic surgery","volume":"6 4","pages":"203-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/lps.1996.6.203","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy versus traditional open repair at a community hospital.\",\"authors\":\"J J Lukaszczyk,&nbsp;R J Preletz,&nbsp;G J Morrow,&nbsp;M K Lange,&nbsp;T J Tachovsky,&nbsp;J M Krall\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/lps.1996.6.203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Over a 2-year period 157 inguinal hernias in 151 patients were consecutively entered in this descriptive, observational study to determine any difference in outcome between a laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair versus an open inguinal hernia repair in a community hospital setting. The laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal technique was utilized in 50 cases. A conventional open repair was used in 107 cases. There were statistically significant differences when the laparoscopic and open groups were compared for the number of days until driving a car (p < 0.01), the number of days until getting in and out of bed comfortably (p = 0.01), the number of days until working on a limited basis (p = 0.01), and the number of days until working on a full-time basis (p < 0.05), although these differences may be due to confounding factors in this nonrandomized study. The average length of operating time was 72.2 min laparoscopic versus 51.6 min open (p < 0.001). We have shown that laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs may have benefits over conventional hernia repairs. This may make its use more widespread than it has already become.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of laparoendoscopic surgery\",\"volume\":\"6 4\",\"pages\":\"203-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/lps.1996.6.203\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of laparoendoscopic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/lps.1996.6.203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of laparoendoscopic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lps.1996.6.203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

在2年的时间里,151名患者的157例腹股沟疝连续进入这项描述性观察性研究,以确定腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术与社区医院开放式腹股沟疝修补术的结果差异。应用腹腔镜经腹腹膜前技术治疗50例。107例采用常规开放式修复。腹腔镜组和开放组在直到开车的天数(p < 0.01)、直到舒适地上床和下床的天数(p = 0.01)、直到在有限的基础上工作的天数(p = 0.01)和直到全职工作的天数(p < 0.05)方面比较,差异有统计学意义,尽管这些差异可能是由于本非随机研究中的混杂因素造成的。平均手术时间腹腔镜为72.2 min,开放为51.6 min (p < 0.001)。我们已经证明腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补可能比传统的疝修补有好处。这可能会使它的使用比现在更加广泛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy versus traditional open repair at a community hospital.

Over a 2-year period 157 inguinal hernias in 151 patients were consecutively entered in this descriptive, observational study to determine any difference in outcome between a laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair versus an open inguinal hernia repair in a community hospital setting. The laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal technique was utilized in 50 cases. A conventional open repair was used in 107 cases. There were statistically significant differences when the laparoscopic and open groups were compared for the number of days until driving a car (p < 0.01), the number of days until getting in and out of bed comfortably (p = 0.01), the number of days until working on a limited basis (p = 0.01), and the number of days until working on a full-time basis (p < 0.05), although these differences may be due to confounding factors in this nonrandomized study. The average length of operating time was 72.2 min laparoscopic versus 51.6 min open (p < 0.001). We have shown that laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs may have benefits over conventional hernia repairs. This may make its use more widespread than it has already become.

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