BACKGROUND: The use of inguinal hernia repair techniques in the community setting is poorly understood. METHODS: A retrospective review of all inguinal hernia repairs performed on adult residents of Olmsted County, MN, from 1989 to 2008 was performed through the Rochester Epidemiology Project. RESULTS: A total of 4,433 inguinal hernia repairs among 3,489 individuals were reviewed. Non-mesh-based repairs predominated in the late 1980s (94% in 1989), declined throughout the 1990s (40% in 1996), and are rarely used nowadays (4% in 2008). Open mesh-based repairs comprised 21% in 1990, peaked in 2001 with 72%, and declined to 55% in 2008. The adoption of laparoscopic repairs began in 1992 (6%) and has increased steadily to 41% in 2008 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although non-mesh-based repairs, once the predominant method, have been supplanted by open mesh-based techniques, nowadays the use of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair techniques has increased substantially to nearly equal that of open mesh-based techniques.
BACKGROUND: The use of inguinal hernia repair techniques in the community setting is poorly understood. METHODS: A retrospective review of all inguinal hernia repairs performed on adult residents of Olmsted County, MN, from 1989 to 2008 was performed through the Rochester Epidemiology Project. RESULTS: A total of 4,433 inguinal hernia repairs among 3,489 individuals were reviewed. Non-mesh-based repairs predominated in the late 1980s (94% in 1989), declined throughout the 1990s (40% in 1996), and are rarely used nowadays (4% in 2008). Open mesh-based repairs comprised 21% in 1990, peaked in 2001 with 72%, and declined to 55% in 2008. The adoption of laparoscopic repairs began in 1992 (6%) and has increased steadily to 41% in 2008 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although non-mesh-based repairs, once the predominant method, have been supplanted by open mesh-based techniques, nowadays the use of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair techniques has increased substantially to nearly equal that of open mesh-based techniques.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Benjamin Zendejas; Edwin O Onkendi; Rushin D Brahmbhatt; Christine M Lohse; Susan M Greenlee; David R Farley Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Leigh Neumayer; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Olga Jonasson; Robert Fitzgibbons; Dorothy Dunlop; James Gibbs; Domenic Reda; William Henderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-04-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joceline V Vu; Vidhya Gunaseelan; Justin B Dimick; Michael J Englesbe; Darrell A Campbell; Dana A Telem Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Samuel W Ross; Steven A Groene; Tanu Prasad; Amy E Lincourt; Kent W Kercher; Vedra A Augenstein; B Todd Heniford Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Joceline V Vu; Vidhya Gunaseelan; Greta L Krapohl; Michael J Englesbe; Darrell A Campbell; Justin B Dimick; Dana A Telem Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Benjamin Zendejas; Tatiana Ramirez; Trahern Jones; Admire Kuchena; Shahzad M Ali; Roberto Hernandez-Irizarry; Christine M Lohse; David R Farley Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Muhammad R S Siddiqui; Maksym Kovzel; Steven J Brennan; Oliver H Priest; Shaun R Preston; Y Soon Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.089