首页> 外文期刊>Hernia : >IPOM plus versus IPOM standard in incisional hernia repair: results of a prospective multicenter trial
【24h】

IPOM plus versus IPOM standard in incisional hernia repair: results of a prospective multicenter trial

机译:IPOM plus 与 IPOM 标准在切口疝修补术中的比较:前瞻性多中心试验的结果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

PurposeLaparoscopic ventral hernia repair is a well-established technique with satisfying outcomes even at long term for the treatment of incisional and ventral hernia. However, the literature debate is still ongoing regarding the preferred surgical technique. Nowadays, two approaches are commonly adopted: the intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (sIPOM) and the intraperitoneal onlay mesh reinforcement with defect closure before mesh placement (pIPOM). The aim of this prospective analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients treated for incisional hernia (IH) with sIPOM and pIPOM after 36 months follow-up in terms of recurrence, quality of life and wound events.MethodsPatients receiving pIPOM and sIPOM for IH were actively followed up for 36 months. At the outpatient clinic, hernia recurrence (HR), mesh bulging (MB), quality of life with the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) and wound events were assessed.ResultsBetween January 2015 and January 2019, 98 patients underwent a pIPOM and 89 underwent an sIPOM. At 36 months, nine patients (4 in pIPOM and 5 in sIPOM) experienced an HR, while MB was recorded in four patients in pIPOM and nine in sIPOM. No statistically significant difference could be identified also in terms of final GIQLI score and wound events.ConclusionsLVHR with or without fascial closure, also in our study, provides satisfactory results in terms of safety and efficacy. The discordant results in the literature are probably related to independent variables such as the type of mesh, the type of suture and closure technique. Therefore, was the funeral of sIPOM done too early?Study dataset is available on ClinicalTrials.gov IDNCT05712213
机译:目的腹腔镜腹疝修补术是一种成熟的技术,即使长期治疗切口疝和腹疝,效果也令人满意。然而,关于首选手术技术的文献争论仍在进行中。目前,通常采用两种方法:腹膜内高嵌体网片修复 (sIPOM) 和腹膜内高嵌体网片加固,在网片放置前闭合缺损 (pIPOM)。本前瞻性分析的目的是比较接受切口疝 (IH) 治疗的患者在 36 个月随访后接受 sIPOM 和 pIPOM 治疗的患者在复发、生活质量和伤口事件方面的术后结局。方法对接受pIPOM和sIPOM治疗IH的患者进行36个月的积极随访。在门诊,评估疝气复发 (HR)、网状膨出 (MB)、胃肠道生活质量指数 (GIQLI) 的生活质量和伤口事件。结果2015年1月至2019年1月,98例患者行pIPOM,89例行sIPOM。在 36 个月时,9 例患者(4 例 pIPOM 和 5 例 sIPOM)经历了 HR,而 4 例 pIPOM 患者和 9 例 sIPOM 患者记录了 MB。在最终 GIQLI 评分和伤口事件方面也没有统计学上的显着差异。结论在我们的研究中,有或没有筋膜闭合的LVHR在安全性和有效性方面都提供了令人满意的结果。文献中的不一致结果可能与自变量有关,例如网片类型、缝合类型和闭合技术。因此,sIPOM的葬礼是否过早?研究数据集可在 ClinicalTrials.gov IDNCT05712213 上获得

著录项

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