Is fascial defect closure with intraperitoneal onlay mesh superior to standard intraperitoneal onlay mesh for laparoscopic repair of large incisional hernia?
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION
The ideal surgical technique for large incisional hernia repair has not yet been identified. The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes of standard intraperitoneal onlay mesh (sIPOM) versus fascial defect closure with intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM-Plus) for large incisional hernia repair.
METHODS
Of 49 patients who underwent laparoscopic incisional hernia repair between November 2005 and December 2016, 26 cases with large incisional hernia (transverse diameter ≥10 cm) were examined to compare surgical outcomes between sIPOM (n = 12) and IPOM-Plus (n = 14). Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
RESULTS
We compared sIPOM with IPOM-Plus for similar hernia types during median follow-up periods of 53 and 21 months, respectively. The operation time was 150 min for sIPOM and 148 min for IPOM-Plus (P = 0.6220). Early postoperative complications including seroma formation were observed in four sIPOM patients (33%) and three IPOM-Plus patients (21%) (P = 0.6652). Significantly more mesh bulged with sIPOM than with IPOM-Plus (50% vs 0%; P = 0.0082). Chronic pain lasting 3 months after the operation was found in two cases of IPOM-Plus (14%), but this was not statistically significant. Postoperative hospital stay was longer for sIPOM patients than for IPOM-Plus patients. Only one recurrence was observed in the sIPOM group (8%), but this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
For large incisional hernia repair, IPOM-Plus seems to be more effective than sIPOM in terms of reducing mesh bulging.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.