Literature DB >> 35953738

Comparing functional outcomes in minimally invasive versus open inguinal hernia repair using the army physical fitness test.

J D Bozzay1,2, D A Nelson3, D R Clifton4,5, D B Edgeworth4,5, P A Deuster4, J D Ritchie6,7, S R Brown6,7, A J Kaplan6,7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The advantages of minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (MIHR) over open hernia repair (OHR) continue to be debated. We compared MIHR to OHR by utilizing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) as an outcome measure.
METHODS: The APFT is a three-component test scored on a normalized 300 point scale taken semiannually by active-duty military. We identified 1119 patients who met inclusion criteria: 588 in the OHR group and 531 in the MIHR group. Changes in APFT scores, time on post-operative duty restrictions (military profile), and time interval to first post-operative APFT were compared using regression analysis.
RESULTS: Postoperatively, no APFT score change difference was observed between the OHR or MIHR groups (- 7.3 ± 30 versus - 5.5 ± 27.7, p = 0.2989). Service members undergoing OHR and MIHR underwent their first post-operative APFT at equal mean timeframes (6.6 ± 5 months versus 6.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.74). No difference was observed for time in months spent on an official temporary duty restriction (military profile) for either OHR or MIHR (0.16 ± 0.16 versus 0.15 ± 0.17, p = 0.311). On adjusted regression analysis, higher pre-operative APFT scores and BMI ≥ 30 were independently associated with reduction in post-operative APFT scores. Higher-baseline APFT scores were independently associated with less time on a post-operative profile, whereas higher BMI (≥ 30) and lower rank were independently associated with longer post-operative profile duration. Higher-baseline APFT scores and lower rank were independently associated with shorter time intervals to the first post-operative APFT.
CONCLUSION: Overall, no differences in post-operative APFT scores, military profile time, or time to first post-operative APFT were observed between minimally invasive or open hernioplasty in this military population.
© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hernia repair, hernioplasty; Inguinal hernia; Laparoscopic; Robotic surgery

Year:  2022        PMID: 35953738     DOI: 10.1007/s10029-022-02650-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hernia        ISSN: 1248-9204            Impact factor:   2.920


  23 in total

Review 1.  Lightweight versus heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andrew Currie; Helen Andrew; Alfredo Tonsi; Paul R Hurley; Sanjay Taribagil
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Watchful waiting vs repair of inguinal hernia in minimally symptomatic men: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Robert J Fitzgibbons; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; James O Gibbs; Dorothy D Dunlop; Domenic J Reda; Martin McCarthy; Leigh A Neumayer; Jeffrey S T Barkun; James L Hoehn; Joseph T Murphy; George A Sarosi; William C Syme; Jon S Thompson; Jia Wang; Olga Jonasson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-01-18       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Lichtenstein Versus Total Extraperitoneal Patch Plasty Versus Transabdominal Patch Plasty Technique for Primary Unilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Registry-based, Propensity Score-matched Comparison of 57,906 Patients.

Authors:  Ferdinand Köckerling; Reinhard Bittner; Michael Kofler; Franz Mayer; Daniela Adolf; Andreas Kuthe; Dirk Weyhe
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Randomized clinical trial comparing total extraperitoneal with Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair (TEPLICH trial).

Authors:  N Gutlic; A Gutlic; U Petersson; P Rogmark; A Montgomery
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  Prospective, multicenter, pairwise analysis of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair with open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: early results from the Prospective Hernia Study.

Authors:  K LeBlanc; E Dickens; A Gonzalez; R Gamagami; R Pierce; C Balentine; G Voeller
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 4.739

6.  Incidence of inguinal hernia and repair procedures and rate of subsequent pain diagnoses, active component service members, U.S. Armed Forces, 2010-2019.

Authors:  Shauna Stahlman; Michael Fan
Journal:  MSMR       Date:  2020-09

7.  Consensus on international guidelines for management of groin hernias.

Authors:  Nadine van Veenendaal; Maarten Simons; William Hope; Sathien Tumtavitikul; Jaap Bonjer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Long-term assessment of surgical and quality-of-life outcomes between lightweight and standard (heavyweight) three-dimensional contoured mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  Michael R Arnold; Kathleen M Coakley; Eric J Fromke; Steve A Groene; Tanu Prasad; Paul D Colavita; Vedra A Augenstein; Kent W Kercher; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 3.982

9.  Lightweight mesh improves functional outcome in laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  L R Khan; S Liong; A C de Beaux; S Kumar; S J Nixon
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2009-09-11       Impact factor: 4.739

10.  Predictors of Temporary Profile Days Among U.S. Army Active Duty Soldiers.

Authors:  Tanekkia M Taylor-Clark; Lori A Loan; Pauline A Swiger; Larry R Hearld; Peng Li; Patricia A Patrician
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 1.437

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.