MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1007/s12098-017-2354-9

Медицинская библиотека · Indian journal of pediatrics · 2017

Choice of Repairing Inguinal Hernia in Children: Open Versus Laparoscopy.

Raveenthiran Venkatachalam, Agarwal Prakash

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяОбзорПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

Inguinal hernia is a common disorder of childhood that requires surgical repair at diagnosis. Traditionally, it is operated upon by open inguinal incision. However, with the introduction of laparoscopic repair in 1990, opinion of scientific community is divided concerning the best method of pediatric herniotomy. Educated parents, who long to have the choicest of the best, often gather information from internet and prefer to discuss their concerns with primary care physicians. This descriptive review is intended to provide practicing pediatricians with updated evidence-based information which will enable them to counsel parents regarding the choice of hernia repair. Based on careful analysis of current literature, unacceptable standards are defined in this paper and rationalized recommendations are proposed. Laparoscopy appears to be beneficial in bilateral hernia of girls, giant hernia, recurrence following failed open repair and in hernia associated with undescended testis or ambiguous genitalia. On the other hand, open herniotomy appears to be advantageous in male inguinal hernia, unilateral female hernia, premature newborns, failed laparoscopic repair and in hernia associated with serious co-morbidity.

Для цитирования: Raveenthiran Venkatachalam, Agarwal Prakash. Choice of Repairing Inguinal Hernia in Children: Open Versus Laparoscopy.. Indian journal of pediatrics. 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s12098-017-2354-9.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.