首页> 外文期刊>Surgical Endoscopy >Medical effectiveness and safety of conventional compared to laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: a systematic review.
【24h】

Medical effectiveness and safety of conventional compared to laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: a systematic review.

机译:与腹腔镜切口疝修补术相比,常规的医学有效性和安全性:系统评价。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are a common complication following abdominal surgery and represent about 80% of all ventral hernia. In uncomplicated postoperative follow-up they develop in about 11% of cases and in up to 23% of cases with wound infections or other forms of wound complications. While conventional mesh repair has been the standard of care in the past, the use of laparoscopic surgery is increasing. It therefore remains uncertain which technique should be recommended as the standard of care. OBJECTIVES: To compare the medical effectiveness and safety of conventional mesh and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. METHODS: A structured literature search of databases accessed through the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI) was conducted. English and German literature published until August 2005 was included and their methodological quality assessed. RESULTS: The search identified 17 relevant publications and included 15 studies for final assessment. Among those were one meta-analysis, one randomized clinical trial (RCT) ,and 13 cohort studies. All studies suffered from significant methodological limitations, such as differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups, small case numbers, and the lack of adjustment for relevant confounders. Overall, medical effectiveness and safety were similar for both surgical approaches. However, there was a trend towards lower recurrence rates, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain as well as decreased complication rates for the laparoscopic repair in the majority of studies. The impact of the technique of mesh implantation and mesh fixation as well as the impact of certain patient-related factors was not systematically assessed in any of the studies. CONCLUSION: No conclusive differences could be identified between the operative techniques. There was, however, some evidence for a trend towards similar or slightly improved outcomes associated with the laparoscopic procedure. There remains an urgent need forhigh-quality prospective studies to evaluate this question conclusively.
机译:背景:切口疝是腹部手术后的常见并发症,约占所有腹疝的80%。在不复杂的术后随访中,它们在约11%的病例中以及在多达23%的具有伤口感染或其他形式的伤口并发症的病例中发展。过去,常规的网片修补已成为护理的标准,而腹腔镜手术的使用正在增加。因此,仍然不确定应推荐哪种技术作为护理标准。目的:比较常规网状和腹腔镜切口疝修补术的医疗效果和安全性。方法:对通过德国医学文献和信息研究所(DIMDI)访问的数据库进行结构化文献检索。纳入了直到2005年8月为止的英语和德语文献,并评估了其方法学质量。结果:搜索确定了17篇相关出版物,包括15项研究以进行最终评估。其中一项荟萃分析,一项随机临床试验(RCT)和13项队列研究。所有研究均受到严重的方法学限制,例如治疗组之间基线特征的差异,病例数少以及对相关混杂因素缺乏调整。总体而言,两种手术方法的医学有效性和安全性相似。但是,在大多数研究中,存在着降低复发率,住院时间和术后疼痛以及腹腔镜修复的并发症率降低的趋势。在任何一项研究中都没有系统地评估网片植入和网片固定技术的影响以及某些与患者相关的因素的影响。结论:手术技术之间尚无最终结论。但是,有一些证据表明与腹腔镜手术相关的结果趋于相似或略有改善。迫切需要高质量的前瞻性研究来最终评估该问题。

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