We designed a retrospective clinical trial comparing laparoscopic primary ventral hernia repair (LPVHR) and open traditional repair (OPVHR). Demographics, perioperative data, results, and follow-up were examined to determine if there was any difference in the main outcomes. From January 2000 to December 2006, 28 consecutive, unselected patients, who successfully underwent LPVHR, were matched with 36 patients, who received OPVHR (with mesh) during the same period. The operating room records, clinical files, and outpatient sheets were examined. Patient demographics, results, and follow-up were compared in the 2 groups. Demographic characteristics, site of hernia, concomitant surgery, and defect size were comparable between the 2 groups, but the proportion of urgent procedures was higher in OPVHR patients (25% vs. 4%; P=0.03). The overall complication rates were similar, with some specific differences, whereas analgesic requirement and hospital stay were also comparable. The operative times were significantly longer for the LPVHR group (70 min vs. 35 min; P<0.000). Four recurrences were noted in both OPVHR and LPVHR patients, 11% versus 14%, respectively, with no significant difference (P=0.67). LPVHR seemed to be as safe as the OVHR in this study, although LPVHR increased operative time. The complications of each method should be taken into consideration before making the choice of the surgical approach.
Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair for primary ventral hernias / Bencini, L; Sanchez, Lj; Boffi, B; Farsi, M; Martini, F; Rossi, M; Bernini, M; Moretti, R. - In: SURGICAL LAPAROSCOPY ENDOSCOPY & PERCUTANEOUS TECHNIQUES. - ISSN 1530-4515. - 19:4(2009), pp. 341-344. [10.1097/SLE.0b013e31819756d7]
Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair for primary ventral hernias
Bernini M;
2009
Abstract
We designed a retrospective clinical trial comparing laparoscopic primary ventral hernia repair (LPVHR) and open traditional repair (OPVHR). Demographics, perioperative data, results, and follow-up were examined to determine if there was any difference in the main outcomes. From January 2000 to December 2006, 28 consecutive, unselected patients, who successfully underwent LPVHR, were matched with 36 patients, who received OPVHR (with mesh) during the same period. The operating room records, clinical files, and outpatient sheets were examined. Patient demographics, results, and follow-up were compared in the 2 groups. Demographic characteristics, site of hernia, concomitant surgery, and defect size were comparable between the 2 groups, but the proportion of urgent procedures was higher in OPVHR patients (25% vs. 4%; P=0.03). The overall complication rates were similar, with some specific differences, whereas analgesic requirement and hospital stay were also comparable. The operative times were significantly longer for the LPVHR group (70 min vs. 35 min; P<0.000). Four recurrences were noted in both OPVHR and LPVHR patients, 11% versus 14%, respectively, with no significant difference (P=0.67). LPVHR seemed to be as safe as the OVHR in this study, although LPVHR increased operative time. The complications of each method should be taken into consideration before making the choice of the surgical approach.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair.pdf
Accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Dimensione
97.88 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
97.88 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris