Suppr超能文献

一项比较缝合网片固定与钉枪网片固定用于腹腔镜切口疝和腹疝修补术的前瞻性随机研究。

A prospective randomized study comparing suture mesh fixation versus tacker mesh fixation for laparoscopic repair of incisional and ventral hernias.

机构信息

Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, Room No. 5021, 5th Floor, Teaching Block, New Delhi, India.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2011 May;25(5):1431-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1410-6. Epub 2010 Oct 26.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

After the first report of laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) in 1993, several studies have proven its efficacy over open method. Among the technical issues, the technique of mesh fixation to the abdominal wall is still an area of debate. This prospective randomized study was done to compare two techniques of mesh fixation, i.e., tacker with four corner transfascial sutures versus transfascial sutures alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

68 patients admitted for LIVHR repair (defect size less than 25 cm2) were randomized in two groups: group I, tacker fixation (36 patients) and group II, suture fixation (32 patients). Various intraoperative variables and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

The patients in the two groups were well matched in terms of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and hernia characteristics. Mean BMI was 29.0 kg/m2. Operative time was found to be significantly higher in group II (77.5 versus 52.6 min, p=0.000). Patients in group I were found to have significantly higher pain scores at 1 h, 6 h, 24 h, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postoperatively. At follow-up, incidence of seromas was higher in group II but the difference was not significant (7 versus 4, p=0.219). During long-term follow-up, patients in group II were satisfied cosmetically.

CONCLUSION

Suture fixation is a cost-effective alternative to tacker fixation, for small and medium-sized defects in anatomically accessible areas. However, suture fixation requires significantly longer operation time, but patients have statistically significantly less postoperative pain.

摘要

简介

1993 年首次报道腹腔镜切口和腹侧疝修补术(LIVHR)后,多项研究已证实其疗效优于开放方法。在技术问题中,网片固定到腹壁的技术仍然是一个有争议的领域。本前瞻性随机研究旨在比较两种网片固定技术,即带四个角经腹缝线的缝合钉与单纯经腹缝线。

材料与方法

68 例接受 LIVHR 修复(缺损小于 25cm2)的患者被随机分为两组:组 I,缝合钉固定(36 例)和组 II,缝线固定(32 例)。记录并分析了各种术中变量和术后结果。

结果

两组患者在年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI)和疝特征方面匹配良好。平均 BMI 为 29.0kg/m2。发现组 II 的手术时间明显更长(77.5 与 52.6min,p=0.000)。组 I 的患者在术后 1h、6h、24h、1 周、1 个月和 3 个月时疼痛评分明显更高。在随访中,组 II 的血清肿发生率较高,但差异无统计学意义(7 与 4,p=0.219)。在长期随访中,组 II 的患者对美容效果满意。

结论

对于解剖可及区域的小至中等大小的缺损,缝线固定是缝合钉固定的一种具有成本效益的替代方法。然而,缝线固定需要更长的手术时间,但患者的术后疼痛明显减轻。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验