SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Genel Tıp Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 30 Sayı: 2

Comparison of posterior and anterior approachfor preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia

İnguinal herni preperitoneal onarımı için posterior yaklaşım ile anterior yaklaşımın karşılaştırılması

Akın ÇALIŞIR
Hüsnü ALPTEKİN
Pages
71–75
Publication Date
2020-06-01
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)

The operation time, hospital stay, short term seroma, hematoma, wound infection, cord edema and long-term testicular atrophy, mesh reaction complications, recurrence and pain were assessed and compared in both groups.Results: No significant difference was observed between groups in age, operation time, hospital stay, postoperative complications andpain.Conclusion: Inconclusion, Transinguinal preperitoneal approach has been evaluated as a procedure that has the advantages of Kugelrepair and it is much easier to learn and has lower cost

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain, chronic pain, complication, and recurrence outcomes following Kugel and Transinguinal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair procedures.Material and Methods: Patients with inguinal hernias who were treated using Kugel procedure n: 46 and Transinguinal preperitoneal approach n: 52 between 2016 and 2018 were evaluated retrospectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain, chronic pain, complication, and recurrence outcomes following Kugel and Transinguinal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair procedures.Material and Methods: Patients with inguinal hernias who were treated using Kugel procedure n: 46 and Transinguinal preperitoneal approach n: 52 between 2016 and 2018 were evaluated retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The operation time, hospital stay, short term seroma, hematoma, wound infection, cord edema and long-term testicular atrophy, mesh reaction complications, recurrence and pain were assessed and compared in both groups.Results: No significant difference was observed between groups in age, operation time, hospital stay, postoperative complications andpain.Conclusion: Inconclusion, Transinguinal preperitoneal approach has been evaluated as a procedure that has the advantages of Kugelrepair and it is much easier to learn and has lower cost
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İnguinal herni · preperitoneal · kugel

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain, chronic pain, complication, and recurrence outcomes following Kugel and Transinguinal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair procedures.Material and Methods: Patients with inguinal hernias who were treated using Kugel procedure n: 46 and Transinguinal preperitoneal approach n: 52 between 2016 and 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. The operation time, hospital stay, short term seroma, hematoma, wound infection, cord edema and long-term testicular atrophy, mesh reaction complications, recurrence and pain were assessed and compared in both groups.Results: No significant difference was observed between groups in age, operation time, hospital stay, postoperative complications andpain.Conclusion: Inconclusion, Transinguinal preperitoneal approach has been evaluated as a procedure that has the advantages of Kugelrepair and it is much easier to learn and has lower cost

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, her ikisi de preperitoneal yaklaşımlar olan Kugel ve TIPP prosedürlerinin postoperatif ağrı, kronik ağrı, komplikasyon ve nüks açısından karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır.Gereç ve Yöntem: 2016 ve 2018 yılları arasında inguinal herni nedeniyle Kugel ve Transinguinal preperioteal onarım prosedürleri kullanılarak opere edilen 98 hastanın dosyaları retrospektif olarak incelendi. Operasyon süresi, hastanede yatış, kısa ve uzun dönem komplikasyonlar, akut ve kronik ağrı değerlendirmesi yapıldı ve iki grup karşılaştırıldı.Sonuç: Yaş, operasyon süresi, hastanede kalış süresi, kısa ve uzun dönem komplikasyonlar, akut ve kronik ağrı karşılaştırmasında iki grup arasında benzer sonuçlar bulundu. Sonuç olarak TIPP, inguinal herni onarımında preperitoneal onarımın avantajlarına sahip ve öğrenilmesi daha kolay ve maliyeti daha düşük bir prosedür olarak değerlendirildi

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇALIŞIR, A., ALPTEKİN, H. (2020). Comparison of posterior and anterior approachfor preperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia. Genel Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 2, 71–75. https://ajindex.com/articles/895698

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Sajid MS CL, Singh KK,Sains P,Baig MK.Open transingu- inal preperitoneal mesh repair of inguinal hernia:a targe- ted systematic review and meta-analysis of published ran- domized controlled trials.Gastroenterol Rep(Oxf). 2013 Sep1(2),127-37 PMID24759818. Kugel RD. Minimally invasive n, preperitoneal, and suture- less, inguinal herniorrhaphy. Am J Surg 1999; 178: 298–302. Kugel RD. The Kugel repair for groin hernias. Surg Clin North Am 2003; 83:1119–39. Fränneby U, Gunnarsson U, Andersson M, et al. Validation of an Inguinal Pain Questionnaire for assessment of chronic pain after groin hernia repair. Br J Surg 2008; 95: 488–93.
  2. Awad SS, Fagan SP. Current approaches to inguinal hernia repair. Am J Surg 2004;15610887. Ramanan B, Maloley BJ, Fitzgibbons RJ. Inguinal hernia: follow or repair? Adv Surg 2014; 48: 25293603. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL. The Lichtenstein open ‘‘tension-free’’ mesh repair of inguinal hernias. Surg Today 1995; 25:619–25. Lichtenstein IL. Herniorrhaphy. A personal experience with 6, 321 cases. Am J Surg 1987;153:553–9.
  3. Koning GG, Keus F, Koeslag L, et al. Randomized clinical trial of chronic pain after the transinguinal preperitoneal technique compared with Lichtenstein’s method for ingui- nal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2012; 99:1365-73.
  4. Inaba T, Okinaga K, Fukushima R, et al. Chronic pain and discomfort after inguinal hernia repair. Surg Today 2012;42: 825-9.
  5. Amid, P. The Lichtenstein repair in 2002: an overview of causes of recurrence after Lichtenstein tension-free herni- oplasty."Hernia 2003; 2: 13-6.
  6. Ray R, Kar M, Mukhopadhyay M. Transinguinal Preperi- toneal Technique of Inguinal Hernioplasty–A Better Alter- native to Lichtenstein Procedure. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR 2014; 8: NC01. Arslan K, Erenoglu B, Turan E, Koksal H, Dogru O. Mini- mally invasive preperitoneal single-layer mesh repair versus standard Lichtenstein hernia repair for inguinal hernia: a prospective randomized trial. Hernia 2015;,19: 373-81.
  7. Eker HH, Langeveld HR, Klitsie PJ, et al. Randomized cli- nical trial of total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty vs Lichtenstein repair: a long-term follow-up study. Arch Surg 2012; 3: 256-60.
  8. Nienhuijs S, Staal E, Keemers-Gels M, Rosman C, Strobbe L. Pain after open preperitoneal repair versus Lichtenstein repair: a randomized trial. World J Surg 2007; 31: 1751-7. Koning GG, de Schipper HJ, Oostvogel HJ, et al. The Til- burg double blind randomised controlled trial comparing inguinal hernia