Literature DB >> 24519807

A consecutive series of 235 epigastric hernias.

J E H Ponten1, B J M Leenders2, J A Charbon2, S W Nienhuijs3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Epigastric herniation is a common, though not always symptomatic condition. It is likely, that in accordance to the tension-free principles for other hernias, epigastric hernia repair should be mesh based.
METHODS: Patients from two large hospitals were investigated retrospectively if they were operated on an epigastric hernia for the past 6 years. Follow-up was completed with a postal questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 235 patients (50 % male) were operated. Sixty-eight patients were operated with mesh and 167 patients with suture repair. Forty-six patients were loss-to follow-up (19.6 %). In the mesh operated patients the recurrence rate was 10.9 % (n = 6) compared to 14.9 % (n = 20) in the suture repair group. Cox-regression analysis showed an increased risk for recurrence in the suture repair group (odds ratio 1.43; 95 % CI 0.56-3.57; p = 0.44). Operation time for mesh repair (47 min) was significantly longer compared to suture repair (29 min) (p < 0.0001). Thirty-seven patients had previous or other anterior wall hernias. A total of 51 patients smoked and 14 patients had diabetes mellitus. Fourteen patients used steroids and 22 patients suffered from a chronic lung disease. Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference for pain in patients in which re-operation for a recurrence occurred (p = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest reported series on solely epigastric hernias. A recurrence occurred more often after sutured repair compared to mesh repair. No differences in chronic pain was seen between mesh and suture repaired patients. Male:female ratio of 1:1, which is different from the 3:1 ratio found in previous older smaller studies, could be more reliable.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Epigastric hernia; Mesh herniorrhaphy; Mesh repair; Primary repair; Suture herniorrhaphy

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24519807     DOI: 10.1007/s10029-014-1227-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hernia        ISSN: 1248-9204            Impact factor:   4.739


  20 in total

1.  Do guidelines influence results in inguinal hernia treatment? A descriptive study of 2,535 hernia repairs in one teaching hospital from 1994 to 2004.

Authors:  T J Aufenacker; S P Schmits; D J Gouma; M P Simons
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2008-08-06       Impact factor: 4.739

2.  Which repair in umbilical hernia of adults: primary or mesh?

Authors:  Ramazan Eryilmaz; Mustafa Sahin; M Hakan Tekelioglu
Journal:  Int Surg       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct

3.  Lower reoperation rate for recurrence after mesh versus sutured elective repair in small umbilical and epigastric hernias. A nationwide register study.

Authors:  M W Christoffersen; F Helgstrand; J Rosenberg; H Kehlet; T Bisgaard
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Retrospective comparison of mesh and sutured repair for adult umbilical hernias.

Authors:  P Sanjay; T D Reid; E L Davies; P J Arumugam; A Woodward
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2005-05-13       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Mesh versus direct suture for the repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias. Ten-year experience.

Authors:  Cesare Stabilini; Mattis Stella; Marco Frascio; Luigi De Salvo; Rosario Fornaro; Giancarlo Larghero; Francesca Mandolfino; Fabrizio Lazzara; Ezio Gianetta
Journal:  Ann Ital Chir       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 0.766

6.  Aponeurotic hernias. Recent observations upon paraumbilical and epigastric hernias.

Authors:  O M Askar
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 2.741

7.  Classification of chronic pain. Descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and definitions of pain terms. Prepared by the International Association for the Study of Pain, Subcommittee on Taxonomy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pain Suppl       Date:  1986

8.  Chronic complaints after simple sutured repair for umbilical or epigastric hernias may be related to recurrence.

Authors:  Mikkel Westen; Mette W Christoffersen; Lars N Jorgensen; Trine Stigaard; Thue Bisgaard
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 9.  Umbilical and epigastric hernia repair.

Authors:  Ulrike Muschaweck
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.741

10.  Frequency of abdominal wall hernias: is classical teaching out of date?

Authors:  Natalie Dabbas; K Adams; K Pearson; Gt Royle
Journal:  JRSM Short Rep       Date:  2011-01-19
View more
  6 in total

1.  Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: outcomes in primary versus incisional hernias: no effect of defect closure.

Authors:  J R Lambrecht; A Vaktskjold; E Trondsen; O M Øyen; O Reiertsen
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 4.739

2.  What is the reality in epigastric hernia repair?-a trend analysis from the Herniamed Registry.

Authors:  F Köckerling; D Adolf; K Zarras; R Fortelny; R Lorenz; B Lammers; W Reinpold; B Stechemesser; C Schug-Pass; D Weyhe
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2021-04-10       Impact factor: 4.739

3.  Mesh Versus Patch Repair for Epigastric and Umbilical Hernia (MORPHEUS Trial); One-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  J E H Ponten; B J M Leenders; W K G Leclercq; T Lettinga; J Heemskerk; J L M Konsten; P S S Castelijns; S W Nienhuijs
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  A systematic review on surgical treatment of primary epigastric hernias.

Authors:  L Blonk; Y A Civil; R Kaufmann; J C F Ket; S van der Velde
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-08-17       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Incarcerated Epigastric Hernia.

Authors:  Snehasis Das; Oseen Shaikh; Naveen Kumar Gaur; Gopal Balasubramanian
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-02-08

6.  SUMMER Trial: mesh versus suture repair in small umbilical hernias in adults-a study protocol for a prospective randomized double-blind multicenter clinical trial.

Authors:  M Melkemichel; S Bringman; G Granåsen; B Widhe
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 2.279

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.