Literature DB >> 7749710

Prospective trial comparing Lichtenstein with laparoscopic tension-free mesh repair of inguinal hernia.

M S Wilson1, G T Deans, W A Brough.   

Abstract

A prospective study of 242 patients with inguinal hernia who underwent tension-free mesh repair by the laparoscopic transperitoneal (n = 121) or the open Lichtenstein (n = 121) technique was performed. There was no significant difference in operation time between the laparoscopic (median (range) 35 (20-90) min) and Lichtenstein (40 (20-90) min) procedures. Discharge within 24 h of operation was more common after laparoscopic surgery (89.3 per cent versus 48.7 per cent). Consequently, hospital stay was reduced with this approach (median (range) 1 (1-7) days versus 2 (1-10) days for patients who had a Lichtenstein repair). There was no significant difference in parenteral analgesia requirements or visual analogue pain scores between the two groups. Although use of oral analgesia in hospital was greater in patients who underwent Lichtenstein hernioplasty, this may reflect their longer stay. Rehabilitation to normal activity and return to work was shorter in patients receiving laparoscopic repair (median 7 and 10 days, respectively) than Lichtenstein repair (14 and 21 days) (P < 0.001). Initial results suggest that laparoscopic procedures may be associated with more rapid rehabilitation compared with that of open tension-free mesh surgery. Most patients with inguinal hernia undergoing tension-free mesh repair by either technique would be suitable for day-case surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7749710     DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800820245

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  16 in total

1.  Long-term follow-up after Lichtenstein hernioplasty in a general surgical unit.

Authors:  L Verstraete; H Swannet
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2003-09-03       Impact factor: 4.739

2.  Anterior tension-free repair of recurrent inguinal hernia under local anesthesia: a 7-year experience in a teaching hospital.

Authors:  E Gianetta; S Cuneo; B Vitale; G Camerini; P Marini; M Stella
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Guidelines for inguinal hernia repair in everyday practice.

Authors:  J Metzger; N Lutz; I Laidlaw
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 4.  Convalescence after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a qualitative systematic review.

Authors:  Mette Astrup Tolver; Jacob Rosenberg; Thue Bisgaard
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Keyhole surgery.

Authors:  R S Taylor; T M Loosemore
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-06-17

6.  Short-term outcomes in open vs. laparoscopic herniorrhaphy: confounding impact of worker's compensation on convalescence.

Authors:  J S Barkun; E J Keyser; M J Wexler; G M Fried; E J Hinchey; M Fernandez; J L Meakins
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  [Laparoscopic or conventional repair of inguinal hernia with synthetic mesh?].

Authors:  J Zieren; H U Zieren; F A Wenger; J M Müller
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Chir       Date:  1996

8.  Impact of randomized trials on the application of endoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair in The Netherlands.

Authors:  M T Knook; L P Stassen; H J Bonjer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  International guidelines for groin hernia management.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 4.739

10.  The effect of preincisional periportal infiltration with ropivacaine in pain relief after laparoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Theodoros E Pavlidis; Konstantinos S Atmatzidis; Basilios T Papaziogas; John G Makris; Charalabos N Lazaridis; Thomas B Papaziogas
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2003 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.