Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017
Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: Utilization Rates of Mesh in the USA and Short-Term Outcome Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Schlottmann Francisco, Strassle Paula D, Patti Marco G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown that the utilization of mesh for paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) does not prevent recurrence. The aims of this study were (a) to assess the utilization of mesh for PEHR in the USA and (b) to compare the perioperative outcomes between PEHR with and without mesh.
METHODS: A retrospective population-based analysis was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Adult patients who underwent laparoscopic PEHR with and without implantation of mesh between 2011 and 2014 were included. The yearly utilization of mesh, stratified by surgical approach, was estimated using the Poisson regression. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of mesh on 30-day perioperative outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 9590 laparoscopic PEHR were included, 5814 (60.6%) without mesh and 3776 (39.4%) with mesh. The yearly rate of PEHR with implantation of mesh did not change significantly during the study period (39.4% mesh utilization in 2011, and 38.2% mesh utilization in 2014, p = 0.37). Patients undergoing PEHR with mesh, as compared to those without mesh, had similar incidence of 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSION: Even though there is no strong evidence to support its use, utilization rates of mesh for laparoscopic PEHR remained high and stable between 2011 and 2014 in the USA. The use of mesh was not associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications.
METHODS: A retrospective population-based analysis was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Adult patients who underwent laparoscopic PEHR with and without implantation of mesh between 2011 and 2014 were included. The yearly utilization of mesh, stratified by surgical approach, was estimated using the Poisson regression. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of mesh on 30-day perioperative outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 9590 laparoscopic PEHR were included, 5814 (60.6%) without mesh and 3776 (39.4%) with mesh. The yearly rate of PEHR with implantation of mesh did not change significantly during the study period (39.4% mesh utilization in 2011, and 38.2% mesh utilization in 2014, p = 0.37). Patients undergoing PEHR with mesh, as compared to those without mesh, had similar incidence of 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSION: Even though there is no strong evidence to support its use, utilization rates of mesh for laparoscopic PEHR remained high and stable between 2011 and 2014 in the USA. The use of mesh was not associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications.