4.6 Article

Investigation of risk factors for postoperative seroma/hematoma after TAPP

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08814-2

关键词

Large inguinal hernia; Internal inguinal hernia; Risk factor; Seroma; Hematoma; TAPP

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that internal inguinal hernia and hernia size >= 3 cm were considered risk factors for postoperative seroma/hematoma formation after TAPP.
Background Seroma/hematoma formation is the most common postoperative complication after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. The occurrence of seroma/hematoma remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for seroma/hematoma formation after transabdominal preperitoneal patch plasty (TAPP). Methods The study enrolled 359 groin hernia patients treated by TAPP at Kumamoto Medical Center between 2014 and 2019. The primary outcome was risk factors for postoperative seroma/hematoma formation after TAPP. The secondary outcomes included recurrence of hernia, postoperative complications, and hospital stay. Results Among the 359 patients, the incidence rate of seroma/hematoma was 16% (n = 69 patients), and the recurrence rate was 0.3% (n = 1 patient, both sides). In total, there were 452 lesions. Japan Hernia Society (JHS) type II was present in 23% (n = 106) of the total cases but was significantly more common in the postoperative seroma/hematoma group (40%; P = 0.0082). Meanwhile, JHS type I-3 comprised 27% of the total JHS type I group but was significantly higher in the postoperative seroma/hematoma JHS type I group (40%; P = 0.016). Compared with JHS type I, the multivariable odds ratio for postoperative seroma/hematoma formation in JHS type II was 2.77 (95% CI 1.54-4.95). Compared with JHS grade 1/2, the multivariable odds ratio for postoperative seroma/hematoma formation in JHS grade 3 was 2.27 (95% CI 1.28-4.03). Conclusions Internal inguinal hernia and hernia size >= 3 cm were considered risk factors for postoperative seroma/hematoma formation after TAPP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据