Literature DB >> 9393254

Mesh inguinal herniorrhaphy: a ten-year review.

P G Janu1, K D Sellers, E C Mangiante.   

Abstract

Inguinal herniorrhaphy remains one of the most common surgical operations, with approximately 10 to 20 per cent performed for recurrence. Reviews by specialized hernia centers show mesh repair has a recurrence rate of 0.2 per cent. Detractors of this repair include increased cost, technical difficulty, and risk for infection. The purpose of this study was to compare mesh versus nonmesh inguinal herniorrhaphy at a large teaching institution. From 1985 to 1994, 892 patients underwent primary repair for inguinal hernia at the Veterans Administration Hospital at Memphis, TN. Patients were stratified by repair [Lichtenstein (Mesh), open anterior (Bassini, Marcy, McVay, and Shouldice), laparoscopic (Lap), and preperitoneal (Post)]. Operative time for Mesh repair (111 +/- 2 minutes) was longer than for Bassini or McVay (91 +/- 2 and 98 +/- 2 minutes; P < 0.05), and Lap repairs were longer than all others (192 +/- 16 minutes; P < 0.05). Hospital stay averaged 2.2 +/- 0.1 days for Mesh versus 2.6 +/- 0.1 days for all repairs combined (P = not significant). Mesh patients developed four wound infections (1.0%), none requiring mesh removal, versus nine infections (1.8%) in other groups (P = not significant). One Mesh patient (0.3%) developed recurrence, compared with 16 (3.5%) with open anterior repair (P < 0.01). Inguinal herniorrhaphy using an open mesh repair technique provides superior recurrence rates without increasing risk for infection, length of stay, or technical difficulty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9393254

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Surg        ISSN: 0003-1348            Impact factor:   0.688


  9 in total

1.  Hernia repair. Clinical indicators.

Authors:  A D Clarke; J M Howat
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  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

3.  Tension-free hernioplasty versus conventional hernioplasty for inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  Emilio Prieto-Díaz-Chávez; José Luis Medina-Chávez; Alejandro González-Ojeda; Rafael Coll-Cárdenas; Oscar Uribarren-Berrueta; Benjamín Trujillo-Hernández; Clemente Vásquez
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.549

4.  Comparison of inguinal hernia repairs performed with lichtenstein, rutkow-robbins, and gilbert double layer graft methods.

Authors:  A Serdar Karaca; Omer Faik Ersoy; Namik Ozkan; Mehmet Ali Yerdel
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 0.656

5.  Evolution of an inguinal hernia surgery practice.

Authors:  M Mokete; J J Earnshaw
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.401

6.  Comparison of endoscopic techniques vs Shouldice and other open nonmesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  R Bittner; S Sauerland; C-G Schmedt
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-03-28       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of tension-free versus shouldice inguinal hernia repair: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

Authors:  E Prieto-Díaz-Chávez; J L Medina-Chávez; R Anaya-Prado
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2009-02-19       Impact factor: 4.739

8.  Feasibility of primary inguinal hernia repair with a new mesh.

Authors:  L Fei; G Filippone; V Trapani; D Cuttitta; E Iannuzzi; M Iannuzzi; G Galizia; F Moccia; G Signoriello
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.282

9.  Hernia repair with porcine small-intestinal submucosa.

Authors:  L Ansaloni; F Catena; S Gagliardi; F Gazzotti; L D'Alessandro; A D Pinna
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2007-04-19       Impact factor: 2.920

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.