...
首页> 外文期刊>Indian Journal of Surgery >Tension-free inguinal hernia repair comparing 'darn' with 'mesh': A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial
【24h】

Tension-free inguinal hernia repair comparing 'darn' with 'mesh': A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

机译:无张力腹股沟疝修补术比较“织补”与“网状”:一项前瞻性随机对照临床试验

获取原文
           

摘要

Background : Tension-free inguinal hernioplasty is sine-qua-non for a good hernia repair and is aptly fulfilled by both Lichtenstein's mesh and a correctly done Abrahamson's darn. Aims: This study compares the increasingly popular, yet costly, Lichtenstein's mesh repair with the classical Abrahamson's darn repair for inguinal hernia. Materials and Methods : A randomized, bias-free study was conducted on 240 patients with blinding adopted during the computation of results. All 240 patients, underwent 240 repairs after being randomized into 2 groups. 120 repairs were done with prolene mesh secured with 2-0 prolene sutures, while the other 120 patients underwent a 3-layered darn repair using 1-0 prolene sutures over a 2-0 prolene posterior bed. Duration of surgery and ergonomics were noted for each case. Results : The operative time was comparable (mean of 38 min for the darn group and 36 min for the mesh group), ( P > 0.5; insignificant), using Fisher's exact 't' test being > 0.5 and hence insignificant. Postoperative complications were minimal in both series. Both groups recorded no recurrences till date. However, darning scored better than mesh when cost of the mesh and darn sutures were compared, other factors being similar. Conclusion : Mesh repair is definitely the more popular version of the two but in countries where cost factors still play a part and prevent many from seeking early treatment, a well constructed darn is an equally effective and less costly treatment option for inguinal hernias.
机译:背景:无张力腹股沟疝整形术对疝气的良好修复是必要的,并且可以由利希滕斯坦的网片和正确完成的亚伯拉罕森织补术来适当地完成。目的:本研究将利希滕斯坦的网状修复与腹股沟疝的经典亚伯拉罕森的织补修复进行了比较。材料和方法:在计算结果的过程中对240名失明患者进行了一项随机,无偏倚的研究。所有240例患者均被随机分为两组,共进行了240例修复。用2-0 len缝缝线固定的pro缝网进行了120次修复,而其他120例患者在2-0 len缝后床上使用1-0缝缝线进行了3层织补修复。记录每个病例的手术时间和人体工程学。结果:手术时间具有可比性(织补组平均38分钟,网状组平均36分钟),(P> 0.5;无意义),使用Fisher的精确“ t”检验> 0.5则无足轻重。在这两个系列中,术后并发症的发生率均最小。两组迄今均未发现复发。但是,当比较网眼和织补缝线的成本时,织补得分比网眼好,其他因素相似。结论:网状修补术无疑是两者中更受欢迎的版本,但是在成本因素仍然起作用并且阻止许多人寻求早期治疗的国家中,构造良好的织补物对于腹股沟疝是同等有效且成本较低的治疗选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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