Surgery · 1995
Laparoscopic versus open inguinal herniorrhaphy: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barkun J S, Wexler M J, Hinchey E J, Thibeault D, Meakins J L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Benefits of laparoscopic herniorrhaphy (LH) over open hernia repair (OH) remain unproved.
METHODS: Interim analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial compared OH with LH where study outcomes were measured by third-party evaluators through patient interviews.
RESULTS: Both groups were well matched for all baseline parameters, although LH patients anticipated a quicker postoperative recovery than OH (p = 0.014). No significant difference was noted in operating time or surgeon operative satisfaction. The median duration of hospital stay was 1 day in both groups; LH patients made use of significantly less postoperative narcotics than OH (p = 0.02). No difference was observed in the durations of convalescence (LH, 9.6 +/- 7.6 days; OH, 10.9 +/- 7.4 days). Greater improvements in quality of life were exhibited in LH patients than OH patients 1 month after operation (p = 0.035), with one of the two measures used. A greater percentage of LH patients seemed "very satisfied with their operation" (p = 0.07). Complication rates were similar, and a single recurrence, in a patient in the OH group, has been observed after a median follow-up of 14 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Direct cost measurements showed LH to be 40% more expensive than OH in the context of a Canadian-type health care system. To date, benefits in postoperative pain and possibly quality of life have been detected in the LH group.
METHODS: Interim analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial compared OH with LH where study outcomes were measured by third-party evaluators through patient interviews.
RESULTS: Both groups were well matched for all baseline parameters, although LH patients anticipated a quicker postoperative recovery than OH (p = 0.014). No significant difference was noted in operating time or surgeon operative satisfaction. The median duration of hospital stay was 1 day in both groups; LH patients made use of significantly less postoperative narcotics than OH (p = 0.02). No difference was observed in the durations of convalescence (LH, 9.6 +/- 7.6 days; OH, 10.9 +/- 7.4 days). Greater improvements in quality of life were exhibited in LH patients than OH patients 1 month after operation (p = 0.035), with one of the two measures used. A greater percentage of LH patients seemed "very satisfied with their operation" (p = 0.07). Complication rates were similar, and a single recurrence, in a patient in the OH group, has been observed after a median follow-up of 14 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Direct cost measurements showed LH to be 40% more expensive than OH in the context of a Canadian-type health care system. To date, benefits in postoperative pain and possibly quality of life have been detected in the LH group.