巨大切口疝修补术:带与不带补片分离技术的比较

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY
S. Benek, Şevki Pedük, Yasin Duran
{"title":"巨大切口疝修补术:带与不带补片分离技术的比较","authors":"S. Benek, Şevki Pedük, Yasin Duran","doi":"10.4103/IJAWhs.ijawhs_74_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are one of the most common postoperative complications encountered by surgeons in daily practice. In our study, we compared the component separation technique (CST) with and without synthetic mesh in large incisional hernia surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The files of 79 patients who underwent surgery for giant incisional hernia between January 2016 and November 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: CST with mesh reinforcement (mesh+ group) and CST without mesh reinforcement (non-mesh group). The groups were compared in terms of recurrence, complications, and other clinical features. RESULTS: There were 36 patients in the mesh+ group and 38 patients in the non-mesh group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographic parameters and clinical features. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of recurrence rate (P = 0.007, OR = 0.17). In addition, there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of mean operation times (2.8 h and 1.9 h for mesh+ and non-mesh, respectively) (P = 0.000, 95% CI). Regardless of the use of mesh, recurrence was significantly higher in the presence of high body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.003, 95% CI) and comorbidity (P = 0.031, OR = 3.4). CONCLUSION: Repair of giant incisional hernias with mesh-reinforced CST is superior to the non-mesh technique in terms of hernia recurrence. Although CST without mesh reinforcement seems advantageous in terms of complications and operation time, we believe that the mesh-reinforced CST should be applied in suitable patients when the total cost, recurrence, and patient satisfaction are taken into account.","PeriodicalId":34200,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"110 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Repair of giant incisional hernias: Comparison of separation technique with and without mesh\",\"authors\":\"S. Benek, Şevki Pedük, Yasin Duran\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/IJAWhs.ijawhs_74_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are one of the most common postoperative complications encountered by surgeons in daily practice. In our study, we compared the component separation technique (CST) with and without synthetic mesh in large incisional hernia surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The files of 79 patients who underwent surgery for giant incisional hernia between January 2016 and November 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: CST with mesh reinforcement (mesh+ group) and CST without mesh reinforcement (non-mesh group). The groups were compared in terms of recurrence, complications, and other clinical features. RESULTS: There were 36 patients in the mesh+ group and 38 patients in the non-mesh group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographic parameters and clinical features. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of recurrence rate (P = 0.007, OR = 0.17). In addition, there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of mean operation times (2.8 h and 1.9 h for mesh+ and non-mesh, respectively) (P = 0.000, 95% CI). Regardless of the use of mesh, recurrence was significantly higher in the presence of high body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.003, 95% CI) and comorbidity (P = 0.031, OR = 3.4). CONCLUSION: Repair of giant incisional hernias with mesh-reinforced CST is superior to the non-mesh technique in terms of hernia recurrence. Although CST without mesh reinforcement seems advantageous in terms of complications and operation time, we believe that the mesh-reinforced CST should be applied in suitable patients when the total cost, recurrence, and patient satisfaction are taken into account.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34200,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"110 - 115\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAWhs.ijawhs_74_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/IJAWhs.ijawhs_74_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:切口疝是外科医生在日常实践中遇到的最常见的术后并发症之一。在我们的研究中,我们比较了有和没有合成补片的成分分离技术(CST)在大切口疝手术中的应用。材料与方法:回顾性分析2016年1月至2020年11月79例手术治疗巨大切口疝患者的资料。患者分为两组:CST加补片组(补片+组)和CST不加补片组(非补片组)。比较两组患者的复发率、并发症及其他临床特征。结果:补片组36例,非补片组38例。两组在人口学参数和临床特征方面无显著差异。两组复发率比较,差异有统计学意义(P = 0.007, OR = 0.17)。此外,两组的平均手术时间(补片组和非补片组分别为2.8 h和1.9 h)也有显著差异(P = 0.000, 95% CI)。无论是否使用补片,如果存在高体重指数(BMI) (P = 0.003, 95% CI)和合并症(P = 0.031, OR = 3.4),复发率明显更高。结论:补片强化CST修补巨大切口疝在疝复发率方面优于非补片技术。虽然不加补片的CST在并发症和手术时间上似乎有优势,但我们认为在考虑总成本、复发率和患者满意度的情况下,应该在合适的患者中应用补片强化的CST。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Repair of giant incisional hernias: Comparison of separation technique with and without mesh
BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are one of the most common postoperative complications encountered by surgeons in daily practice. In our study, we compared the component separation technique (CST) with and without synthetic mesh in large incisional hernia surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The files of 79 patients who underwent surgery for giant incisional hernia between January 2016 and November 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: CST with mesh reinforcement (mesh+ group) and CST without mesh reinforcement (non-mesh group). The groups were compared in terms of recurrence, complications, and other clinical features. RESULTS: There were 36 patients in the mesh+ group and 38 patients in the non-mesh group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographic parameters and clinical features. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of recurrence rate (P = 0.007, OR = 0.17). In addition, there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of mean operation times (2.8 h and 1.9 h for mesh+ and non-mesh, respectively) (P = 0.000, 95% CI). Regardless of the use of mesh, recurrence was significantly higher in the presence of high body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.003, 95% CI) and comorbidity (P = 0.031, OR = 3.4). CONCLUSION: Repair of giant incisional hernias with mesh-reinforced CST is superior to the non-mesh technique in terms of hernia recurrence. Although CST without mesh reinforcement seems advantageous in terms of complications and operation time, we believe that the mesh-reinforced CST should be applied in suitable patients when the total cost, recurrence, and patient satisfaction are taken into account.
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
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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