Surgery · 2021
Are the relative benefits of open versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal mesh repair of umbilical hernias dependent on the diameter of the defect?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Frey Samuel, Jurczak Florent, Fromont Gérard, Dabrowski André, Soler Marc, Cossa Jean-Pierre, Magne Eric, Zaranis Constantin, Beck Mathieu, Gillion Jean-François, Hernia-Club Members
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess whether the respective values of open and laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs of umbilical hernias are related to the European Hernia Society diameter of defects.
METHODS: This registry-based study compared the early and 2-year outcomes of 776 open versus 1,019 consecutive laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs performed from 2011 to 2019.
RESULTS: Intraperitoneal mesh repair, either laparoscopic or open, was found to be a safe procedure at the 2-year follow-up. The incidence of reoperated bowel obstructions was 0.3%. Compared with the open group: (1) postoperative surgical site occurrences in small (<2 cm) or medium (2-4 cm) hernias (0.3% vs 2.4%; P = .041; 1.4% vs 5.9%; P = .0002); (2) recurrence rates in large (≥4 cm) umbilical hernias (0.0% vs 8.6%; P = .0195); and (3) cumulative reoperation rates (0.9% vs 2.2%; P = .021) were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Conversely, the rate of early pain on day 1 and 1 month postsurgery was higher in the laparoscopic group, for all hernia sizes (P < .001). The rate of moderate or severe chronic pain at 2 years was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (8.1% vs 2.4%; P = .049) for small hernias.
CONCLUSION: The respective benefit to drawback ratios for open versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs were related to the European Hernia Society diameter of hernia defect. In medium-large hernias, the benefits of laparoscopic repair overrode its drawbacks. In small hernias, the low recurrence rate, reduced early and chronic pain, and better rate of ambulatory surgery suggest there is still a place for open repair.
METHODS: This registry-based study compared the early and 2-year outcomes of 776 open versus 1,019 consecutive laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs performed from 2011 to 2019.
RESULTS: Intraperitoneal mesh repair, either laparoscopic or open, was found to be a safe procedure at the 2-year follow-up. The incidence of reoperated bowel obstructions was 0.3%. Compared with the open group: (1) postoperative surgical site occurrences in small (<2 cm) or medium (2-4 cm) hernias (0.3% vs 2.4%; P = .041; 1.4% vs 5.9%; P = .0002); (2) recurrence rates in large (≥4 cm) umbilical hernias (0.0% vs 8.6%; P = .0195); and (3) cumulative reoperation rates (0.9% vs 2.2%; P = .021) were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Conversely, the rate of early pain on day 1 and 1 month postsurgery was higher in the laparoscopic group, for all hernia sizes (P < .001). The rate of moderate or severe chronic pain at 2 years was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (8.1% vs 2.4%; P = .049) for small hernias.
CONCLUSION: The respective benefit to drawback ratios for open versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs were related to the European Hernia Society diameter of hernia defect. In medium-large hernias, the benefits of laparoscopic repair overrode its drawbacks. In small hernias, the low recurrence rate, reduced early and chronic pain, and better rate of ambulatory surgery suggest there is still a place for open repair.