文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

网片位置在腹壁重建中重要吗?系统文献复习和推荐总结。

Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary of recommendations.

机构信息

Washington, D.C. From the Departments of Plastic Surgery and General Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital.

出版信息

Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Nov;132(5):1295-1304. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c393.


DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c393
PMID:24165612
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mesh implantation during abdominal wall reconstruction decreases rates of ventral hernia recurrence and has become the dominant method of repair. The authors provide a comprehensive comparison of surgical outcomes and complications by location of mesh placement following ventral hernia repair with onlay, interposition, retrorectus, or underlay mesh. METHODS: A systematic search of the English literature published from 1996 to 2012 in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases was conducted to identify patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction using either prosthetic or biological mesh for ventral hernia repair. Demographic information was obtained from each study. RESULTS: Sixty-two relevant articles were included with 5824 patients treated with mesh repair of a ventral hernia between 1996 and 2012. Mesh position included onlay (19.6 percent), underlay (60.7 percent), interposition (6.4 percent), and retrorectus (12.4 percent). Prosthetic mesh was used in 80 percent of repairs and biological mesh in 20 percent. The weighted mean incidences of early events were as follows: wound complications, 19 percent; wound infections, 8 percent; seroma or hematoma formation, 11 percent; and reoperation, 10 percent. The weighted mean incidences of late complications included 8 percent for hernia recurrence and 2 percent for mesh explantation. Recurrence rates were highest for onlay (17 percent) or interposition (17 percent) reinforcement. The infection rate was also highest in the interposition cohort (25 percent). Seroma rates were lowest following a retrorectus repair (4 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Mesh reinforcement of a ventral hernia repair is safe and efficacious, but the location of the reinforcement appears to influence outcomes. Underlay or retrorectus mesh placement is associated with lower recurrence rates.

摘要

背景:在腹壁重建过程中植入网片可降低腹壁疝复发率,已成为修复的主要方法。作者通过对比腹疝修补术中使用的补片位置(包括前入路、中间入路、后入路或下入路),对手术结果和并发症进行了全面的比较。

方法:系统检索了 1996 年至 2012 年在 PubMed、MEDLINE 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库中发表的英文文献,以确定接受腹壁重建的患者,这些患者使用的是合成或生物补片进行腹疝修补。从每项研究中获取人口统计学信息。

结果:纳入了 62 篇相关文章,共有 5824 例患者在 1996 年至 2012 年间接受了腹疝修补术和网片治疗。补片位置包括前入路(19.6%)、下入路(60.7%)、中间入路(6.4%)和后入路(12.4%)。80%的修复使用合成补片,20%的修复使用生物补片。早期事件的加权平均发生率如下:伤口并发症 19%;伤口感染 8%;血清肿或血肿形成 11%;再次手术 10%。晚期并发症的加权平均发生率包括疝复发 8%和补片取出 2%。前入路或中间入路强化的复发率最高(分别为 17%和 17%)。中间入路组的感染率也最高(25%)。后入路修复的血清肿发生率最低(4%)。

结论:腹疝修补术中使用网片强化是安全有效的,但强化的位置似乎会影响结果。下入路或后入路的网片放置与较低的复发率相关。

相似文献

[1]
Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary of recommendations.

Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013-11

[2]
Open surgical procedures for incisional hernias.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008-7-16

[3]
Mesh versus non-mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-9-13

[4]
Complex abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of active infection and contamination: a systematic review of hernia and fistula recurrence rates.

Colorectal Dis. 2017-4

[5]
The Perfect Plane: A Systematic Review of Mesh Location and Outcomes, Update 2018.

Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018-9

[6]
Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-7-4

[7]
Recovery after abdominal wall reconstruction.

Dan Med J. 2017-3

[8]
Meta-analysis and systematic review of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for elective incisional hernia.

Hernia. 2015-6

[9]
Does prior mesh infection matter? Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing complex abdominal wall reconstruction after infected mesh explantation.

Hernia. 2025-7-9

[10]
Abdominal wall reconstruction in ventral hernia repair: do current models predict surgical site risk?

Hernia. 2025-6-18

引用本文的文献

[1]
Risk Factors for Wound Complications and Hernia Recurrence in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Single-Institution Retrospective Study.

Cureus. 2025-7-23

[2]
Evaluation of medium to long-term patient satisfaction following open midline incisional hernia repair.

Hernia. 2025-5-20

[3]
Interim analysis of single - centre randomised controlled trial on incisional hernia repair with vs without synthetic mesh fixation.

Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2025-4-21

[4]
Chronic pain and foreign body sensation based on mesh placement in primary ventral hernia repair: a systematic review highlighting the evidence gap and a call to action.

Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2025-4-21

[5]
Is it safe not to fix the mesh in an open incisional hernia repair? Literature review.

BMC Surg. 2025-4-11

[6]
Abdominal Wall Reconstruction in Abdominal Wall Endometriosis: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Arch Plast Surg. 2025-3-11

[7]
Videoendoscopic assisted Rives-Stoppa technique. "Treatment for epigastric and umbilical hernias with diastasis recti".

Hernia. 2024-12

[8]
Retrorectus Ventral Hernia Repair Utilizing T-line Hernia Mesh: Technical Descriptions.

Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024-8-26

[9]
A Comparative Study of Retrorectus Mesh Placement Versus Properitoneal Mesh Placement in Open Repairs of Ventral Hernias.

Cureus. 2023-9-15

[10]
Midline incisional hernia guidelines: the European Hernia Society.

Br J Surg. 2023-11-9

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索