首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Surgical Research: Clinical and Laboratory Investigation >Self-gripping versus sutured mesh for inguinal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature
【24h】

Self-gripping versus sutured mesh for inguinal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature

机译:自握式或缝合式网片治疗腹股沟疝的疗效:对当前文献的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Background: Lichtenstein tension-free mesh repair is the most commonly used technique for open inguinal hernia. However, mesh fixation with sutures to avoid dislocation has been considered as a cause of chronic pain and discomfort. A new self-gripping mesh (Parietene Progrip; Coviden) has been developed, which is making the use of sutureless for inguinal hernia repair. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the outcomes of open Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair using new self-gripping mesh or sutured mesh. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and reference lists were searched for controlled trials of self-gripping mesh versus sutured mesh for open inguinal hernia repair from January 2005 to February 2013. The primary outcomes were chronic pain and recurrence. Secondary outcomes were duration of operation, wound infection, hematoma, seroma formation, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and time to return to work. The methodology was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for interventional systematic reviews and written based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Results: A total of seven studies, representing 1353 patients were included. There was no effect on chronic pain (risk difference-0.02 [95% confidence interval-0.07 to 0.03], P = 0.40) or recurrence (risk difference-0.00 [95% confidence interval-0.01 to 0.01], P = 0.57). No significant differences were noted in terms of secondary outcomes, such as wound infection, hematoma, and seroma formation, between self-gripping and sutured mesh repair. But the mean operative duration was shorter in the self-gripping mesh group than sutured mesh group. Conclusions: Based on the results, both meshes appear to result in similar postoperation outcomes. Further long-term analysis may guide surgeon selection of adapted mesh for inguinal hernia repair.
机译:背景:利希滕斯坦无张力网片修补术是开放性腹股沟疝最常用的技术。然而,用缝合线固定网眼以避免脱位已被认为是造成慢性疼痛和不适的原因。已经开发了一种新的自握式网片(Parietene Progrip; Coviden),该技术正在将无缝合线用于腹股沟疝修补术。该系统评价的目的是比较使用新的自握式网片或缝合式网片进行开放性利奇滕斯坦腹股沟疝修补术的效果。方法:从PubMed / MEDLINE,CENTRAL和参考文献列表中检索自抓网与缝合网进行的2005年1月至2013年2月腹股沟疝修补术的对照试验。主要结果是慢性疼痛和复发。次要结果是手术持续时间,伤口感染,血肿,血清肿形成,术后疼痛,住院时间和恢复工作时间。该方法学根据《 Cochrane手册》进行干预性系统评价,并基于系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目编写。结果:共纳入7项研究,代表1353例患者。对慢性疼痛(风险差异-0.02 [95%置信区间-0.07至0.03],P = 0.40)或复发(风险差异-0.00 [95%置信区间-0.01至0.01],P = 0.57)没有影响。自握式和缝合式网状修复之间的继发结局(如伤口感染,血肿和血清​​肿形成)没有显着差异。但是自握式网状组的平均手术时间短于缝合式网状组。结论:基于结果,两个网孔似乎导致相似的术后结果。进一步的长期分析可能会指导外科医生选择适合的腹股沟疝修补术。

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