Journals / Haseki Tıp Bülteni / 2015 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 3

Preperitoneal Mesh Placement with Anterior Approach in Incarcerated Femoral Hernia (Our Experiences with 23 Cases)

İnkarsere Femoral Hernilerde Anterior Yaklaşımla Preperitoneal Mesh Yerleştirilmesi (23 Hastalık Deneyimimiz)

Pages
196–198
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Chronic pain related to nerve damage was not observed.Conclusion:­Preperitoneal mesh placement with anterior approach in incarcerated femoral hernia as an emergency is safe in terms of complications and recurrence either with or without intestinal resection. (The Me di cal Bul le tin of Ha se ki 2015; 53: 196-8)

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To investigate the effectiveness of preperitoneal mesh placement with anterior approach in incarcerated femoral hernia and to reveal morbidity and recurrence rates.Methods:­Twenty-three patients with incarcerated inguinal hernia, who were admitted to our emergency surgery clinic between the years 2009 and 2012 and found to have incarcerated femoral hernia during exploration, were included in the study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By cutting transversalis fascia, polypropylene mesh was placed preperitoneally between Cooper‘s ligament and the conjoint tendon.Results:­The mean age was 54.2 (39-85) years; 16 (69%) subjects were men, 7 (31%) were women.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Chronic pain related to nerve damage was not observed.Conclusion:­Preperitoneal mesh placement with anterior approach in incarcerated femoral hernia as an emergency is safe in terms of complications and recurrence either with or without intestinal resection. (The Me di cal Bul le tin of Ha se ki 2015; 53: 196-8)
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the effectiveness of preperitoneal mesh placement with anterior approach in incarcerated femoral hernia and to reveal morbidity and recurrence rates.Methods:­Twenty-three patients with incarcerated inguinal hernia, who were admitted to our emergency surgery clinic between the years 2009 and 2012 and found to have incarcerated femoral hernia during exploration, were included in the study. All patients underwent inguinal transverse incision suitable for anterior approach. By cutting transversalis fascia, polypropylene mesh was placed preperitoneally between Cooper‘s ligament and the conjoint tendon.Results:­The mean age was 54.2 (39-85) years; 16 (69%) subjects were men, 7 (31%) were women. Five patients had no complaints related to hernia before being admitted to the hospital. Six (26%) patients underwent bowel resection and anastomosis. Small intestines or omentum incarcerated in the hernia sac were reduced into the abdomen in 17 (74%) patients. There was no complication during surgical interventions. Average length of hospital stay in patients with resection and anastomosis were 5.3 days, and 2.1 days in patients with no resection. In follow-up, 3 (13%) patients had hematoma-seroma and 2 (8%) patients had wound infection. In 2-4 years follow-up, no recurrence was detected. Chronic pain related to nerve damage was not observed.Conclusion:­Preperitoneal mesh placement with anterior approach in incarcerated femoral hernia as an emergency is safe in terms of complications and recurrence either with or without intestinal resection. (The Me di cal Bul le tin of Ha se ki 2015; 53: 196-8)

Özet

Amaç:­İnkarsere femoral fıtıkların acil onarımında preperitoneal mesh yerleştirmenin etkinliğini araştırmak, morbidite ve rekürrensini ortaya koymaktır.Yöntemler:­2009-2012 yılları arasında acil cerrahi kliniğimize inkarsere inguinal fıtık nedeniyle başvuran ve eksplorasyonda femoral fıtık tespit edilen 23 hasta çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Her hastaya anterior yaklaşıma uygun şekilde transvers inguinal insizyon yapılmış olup, hastalara transvers fasya açılarak Cooper ligamanı ile conjoint tendonun arasına preperitoneal alana polypropilen mesh yerleştirilmiştir. Bulgular:­Ortalama yaş 54,2 olup (39-85), 16 (%69) hasta kadın 7 (%31) hasta erkek idi. Hastalardan beşinin öncesine ait fıtık şikayetleri yoktu. Altı (%26) hastada barsak rezeksiyonu ve anastomoz uygulandı. Onyedi (%74) hastada sıkışan ince barsaklar veya omentum batına redükte edildi. Ameliyat sırasında ek komplikasyon gelişmedi. Barsak rezeksiyonu yapılan hastalarda hastanede kalış süresi ortalama 5,3 gün iken rezeksiyon yapılmayan hastalarda ise 2,1 gün idi. Takiplerde 3 (%13) hastada hematom-seroma, 2 (%8) hastada yara yeri enfeksiyonu tespit edildi. İki-dört yıllık takipte hiçbir hastada nüks saptanmadı. Sinir hasarına bağlı kronik ağrı görülmedi.Sonuç:­Acil ameliyat edilen inkarsere femoral fıtıklarda barsak rezeksiyonu yapılsın ya da yapılmasın anterior yaklaşımla preperitoneal mesh yerleştirme komplikasyonlar ve nüks açısından güvenlidir. (Ha se ki T›p Bül te ni 2015; 53: 196-8

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇAKIR, M., SAVAŞ, O. A., TÜZÜN, S., TATAR, C. (2015). Preperitoneal Mesh Placement with Anterior Approach in Incarcerated Femoral Hernia (Our Experiences with 23 Cases). Haseki Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 3, 196–198. https://ajindex.com/articles/218185

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ger R, Mishrick A, Hurwitz J, Romero C, Oddsen R. Management of groin hernias by laparascopy. World J Surg 1993;17:46-50
  2. Rutkow IM. A selective history of groin hernia surgery in the early 19th century. The anatomic atlases of Astley Cooper, Franz Hesselbach, Antonio Scarpa, and Jules-Germain Cloquet. Surg Clin North Am 1998;78:921-41
  3. Brunicardi Charles F. Inguinal Hernias. In: Schwartz‘s Principles of Surgery. 9th Ed. 2010.chapter 37 4. Dahlstrand U, Wollert S, Nordin P, Sandblom G, Gunnarsson U. Emergency femoral hernia repair a study based on a national register. Ann Surg 2009;249:672-6
  4. Sawayama H, Kanemitsu K, Okuma T, Inoue K, Yamamoto K, Baba H. Safety of polypropylene mesh for incarcerated groin and obturator hernias: a retrospective study of 110 patients. Hernia 2014;18:399-406
  5. Elsebae MM, Nasr M, Said M. Tension-free repair versus bassini technique for strangulated inguinal hernia: a controlled randomized study. Int J Surg 2008;4;302-5
  6. Atila K, Guler S, Inal A, Sokmen S, Karademir S, Bora S. Prosthetic repair of acutely incarcerated groin hernias:a prospective clinical observational cohort study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2010;395:563-8
  7. Emir S, Sözen S, Yazar FM, ve ark. İnkarsere inguinal herni onarımında yama kullanımının güvenilirlik ve etkinliği: Bir klinik çalışma. Kafkas J Med Sci 2012;2:15-20
  8. Alimoğlu O, Kaya B, Okan I, ve ark. Femoral hernia: a review of 83 cases. Hernia 2006;10:70-3
  9. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, et al. A comprasion of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Eng J Med 2000;343392-8
  10. Lichtenstein IL. Herniorrhaphy. A personal experience with 6,321 cases. Am J Surg 1987;153:553-9
  11. Taylor SG, O‘ Dwier PJ. Chronic groin sepsis following tension-free inguinal hernioplasty. Br J Surg 1999;86:562-5
  12. Gilbert AI, Felton LL. Infection in inguinal hernia repair: considering biomaterials and antibiotics. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;177:126-30