Surgical endoscopy · 2015
Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Wijerathne Sujith, Agarwal Narendra, Ramzi Ahmad, Liem Dino H, Tan Wee B, Lomanto Davide
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The advantage of single-port total extra-peritoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair over the conventional technique is still debatable. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of TEP inguinal hernia repair using either a single-port or conventional surgical technique, in two blind randomized groups of patients.
METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial, 100 patients undergoing surgery for unilateral inguinal hernia were randomized into two groups: One group underwent conventional laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair, while the other was selected for single-port TEP repair. Primary endpoint is postoperative pain (VAS), while secondary endpoints are recurrence, chronic pain and complications.
RESULTS: From 100 patients, 49 underwent single-port hernia TEP repair, 50 had conventional three-port TEP hernia repair, and one patient declined to participate after randomization. The two groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics and operative findings. Mean operative time was 49.1(±13.8) min in the conventional group and 54.1(±14.4) min in the single-port group (p = 0.08). Mean hospital stay was 19.7(±5.8) h in the conventional group and 20.5(±6.4) h in the single-port group (p = 0.489). No major complications and no recurrence reported at 11-month follow-up. No statistically significant difference noted in postoperative pain between the two groups at regular intervals.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes after laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with a single-port device are similar but not superior to the conventional technique.
METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial, 100 patients undergoing surgery for unilateral inguinal hernia were randomized into two groups: One group underwent conventional laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair, while the other was selected for single-port TEP repair. Primary endpoint is postoperative pain (VAS), while secondary endpoints are recurrence, chronic pain and complications.
RESULTS: From 100 patients, 49 underwent single-port hernia TEP repair, 50 had conventional three-port TEP hernia repair, and one patient declined to participate after randomization. The two groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics and operative findings. Mean operative time was 49.1(±13.8) min in the conventional group and 54.1(±14.4) min in the single-port group (p = 0.08). Mean hospital stay was 19.7(±5.8) h in the conventional group and 20.5(±6.4) h in the single-port group (p = 0.489). No major complications and no recurrence reported at 11-month follow-up. No statistically significant difference noted in postoperative pain between the two groups at regular intervals.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes after laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with a single-port device are similar but not superior to the conventional technique.