4.1 Article

Hybrid: Evolving techniques in laparoscopic ventral hernia mesh repair

期刊

JOURNAL OF MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 224-228

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_163_18

关键词

Composite mesh; hybrid techniques; laparoscopic ventral hernia mesh repair

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Laparoscopic repair is now the treatment of choice for most cases of ventral/incisional hernia. Although the technique has undergone many refinements, there is no standard technique for difficult or complicated hernias. Aim: The aim of this study was to show the different innovative methods used to treat difficult ventral hernia through hybrid techniques. Materials and Methods: A total of 75 (n = 75) patients underwent Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Hybrid Mesh Repair (LVHHMR) by our surgical unit between January 2014 and December 2016. Three different techniques of repairing the defects were used. Mesh fixation time, post-operative pain score (visual analogue score) and follow-up for pain and recurrence (at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months) were recorded and analysed. Results: Out of 75 patients (20 men and 55 women), the median age was 45 years and body mass index of the patients was 25-35. Types of hernias operated were paraumbilical hernias, incisional and recurrent hernias. The techniques used were (1) laparoscopic adhesiolysis, open sac excision with closure of defect and laparoscopic mesh placement, (2) laparoscopic adhesiolysis, omphalectomy with closure of defect and laparoscopic mesh placement and (3) open adhesiolysis, sac excision with closure of defect and laparoscopic mesh placement. Five patients required analgesics for 48 h. No patients complained of pain at follow-ups (1 month, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months). Mean hospital stay postoperatively was 2-3 days. Conclusion: LVHHMR is safe and feasible approach for complicated/difficult ventral hernias. However, further larger studies are required to establish these methods as gold standard.

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

4.1
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