4.3 Article

Development of a laparoscopic technique for inguinal hernioplasty in standing horses

期刊

VETERINARY RECORD
卷 192, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/vetr.2584

关键词

hernioplasty; horse; inguinal hernia; laparoscopy; PEEK harpoon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty technique using a surgical anchoring system was described in this study. The technique involved anchoring a polyether ether ketone harpoon in the craniolateral aspect of the vaginal ring and using an extracorporeal knot to fix the device. The procedure was performed successfully in all horses without any other complications.
BackgroundMost previously described techniques for laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty (IH) in horses require advanced laparoscopic skills. Our objective was to describe a new laparoscopic IH technique using a surgical anchoring system. MethodsStanding laparoscopic IH was performed unilaterally in eight experimental stallions, using the contralateral inguinal canal (IC) as a control. A polyether ether ketone harpoon was anchored in the craniolateral aspect of the vaginal ring, and an extracorporeal knot was used to fix the device. Clinical evaluation, including testicular palpation and lameness examination, was conducted before and for 4 weeks after surgery. Repeat laparoscopy was performed 28 days later. ResultsStanding laparoscopic IH was performed in all horses with a surgical time of 38 +/- 12.85 minutes. In two animals, a small peritoneal tear occurred that did not require repair. No other complications were recorded. On repeat laparoscopy, all devices were in place, and the IC remained partially closed in all horses. LimitationsThe procedure was performed on normal experimental horses and has not been employed on horses that have had an inguinal hernia. ConclusionsThis new standing laparoscopic hernioplasty technique provides another potential method for simple partial closure of the IC in stallions at risk of or with history of inguinal herniation.

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

4.3
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