首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>The Indian Journal of Surgery >A Comparative Analysis on Various Techniques of Incisional Hernia Repair–Experience from a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in South India
【2h】

A Comparative Analysis on Various Techniques of Incisional Hernia Repair–Experience from a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in South India

机译:印度南部三级教学医院各种切口疝修补术经验的比较分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

This prospective study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in South India over a period of 7 years and included 90 patients with incisional hernia (n = 90; 76 females and 14 males), operated over 2 years (January 2004 to December 2005), and followed-up for 5 years postoperatively (2005–2009). As per the surgical unit preference, patients underwent different methods of hernia repair—onlay mesh repair (n = 45, 50 %), underlay mesh repair (n = 18, 20 %), and anatomical repair (i.e., without mesh) (n = 27, 30 %). Parameters studied included seroma formation, wound infection, postoperative pain, and hernia recurrence. Although the first two parameters were statistically not significant, postoperative pain was found to be more in patients who underwent an underlay repair. A significant difference in the hernia recurrence rate was observed between mesh repair and anatomical repair groups. Hence, we conclude that all incisional hernias should be repaired with a mesh (meshplasty).
机译:这项前瞻性研究在印度南部的一家三级教学医院进行了7年,其中包括90例切口疝(n = 90; 76例女性和14例男性),手术时间超过2年(2004年1月至2005年12月)。 ,术后随访5年(2005-2009年)。根据手术单位的喜好,患者接受不同的疝气修补方法-埋网修复(n = 45,50%),埋网修复(n = 18,20%)和解剖修复(即,无网)(n = 27,30%)。研究的参数包括血清肿形成,伤口感染,术后疼痛和疝复发。尽管前两个参数在统计学上不显着,但发现接受垫修复的患者术后疼痛更大。网状修复组与解剖修复组之间的疝复发率存在显着差异。因此,我们得出结论,所有切开疝均应使用网片(网状成形术)修复。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号