Suppr超能文献

腹侧疝和切口疝修补术的汇总数据分析是否可行?

Is pooled data analysis of ventral and incisional hernia repair acceptable?

作者信息

Köckerling Ferdinand, Schug-Paß Christine, Adolf Daniela, Reinpold Wolfgang, Stechemesser Bernd

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Vivantes Hospital Berlin, Academic Teaching Hospital of Charité Medical School , Berlin , Germany.

StatConsult GmbH , Magdeburg , Germany.

出版信息

Front Surg. 2015 May 12;2:15. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00015. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

PURPOSE

In meta-analyses and systematic reviews comparing laparoscopic with open repair of ventral hernias, data on umbilical, epigastric, and incisional hernias are pooled. Based on data from the Herniamed Hernia Registry, we aimed to investigate whether the differences in the therapy and treatment results justified such an approach.

METHODS

Between 1st September 2009 and 31st August 2013, 31,664 patients with a ventral hernia were enrolled in the Herniamed Hernia Registry. The implicated hernias included 16,206 umbilical hernias, 3,757 epigastric hernias, and 11,701 incisional hernias. Data on the surgical techniques, postoperative complication rates, and 1-year follow-up results were subjected to statistical analysis to identify any significant differences between the various hernia types.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic IPOM technique was used significantly more often for incisional hernia than for epigastric hernia, 31.3 vs. 24.0%, respectively, and was used for 12.9% of umbilical hernias (p < 0.0001). Likewise, the open technique with suturing of defect was used significantly more often for umbilical hernia than for epigastric hernia, 56.1 vs. 35.4%, respectively, and was used for 12.5% of incisional hernias (p < 0.0001). The postoperative complication rates of 3.2% for umbilical hernia and 3.5% for epigastric hernia were significantly lower than for incisional hernia, at 9.2% (p < 0.0001). That was also true for the reoperation rates due to postoperative complications, of 1.0 vs. 1.2 vs. 4.2% (p < 0.0001). The 1-year follow-up revealed significantly higher recurrence rates as well as rates of chronic pain needing treatment of 6.3 and 7.9%, respectively, for incisional hernia, compared with 4.1 and 4.3%, respectively, for epigastric hernia, and 2 and 1.9%, respectively, for umbilical hernia (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Since significant differences were identified in the therapy and treatment results between umbilical hernia, epigastric hernia, and incisional hernia, scientific studies should be conducted comparing the various surgical techniques only for a single hernia type.

摘要

目的

在比较腹腔镜与开放手术修复腹疝的荟萃分析和系统评价中,脐疝、上腹疝和切口疝的数据被汇总在一起。基于疝医学疝登记处的数据,我们旨在研究治疗方法和治疗结果的差异是否证明这种方法是合理的。

方法

2009年9月1日至2013年8月31日期间,31664例腹疝患者被纳入疝医学疝登记处。其中包括16206例脐疝、3757例上腹疝和11701例切口疝。对手术技术、术后并发症发生率和1年随访结果的数据进行统计分析,以确定不同疝类型之间的任何显著差异。

结果

腹腔镜腹腔内补片修补术(IPOM)在切口疝中的应用频率明显高于上腹疝,分别为31.3%和24.0%,在脐疝中的应用率为12.9%(p<0.0001)。同样,开放修补缺损技术在脐疝中的应用频率明显高于上腹疝,分别为56.1%和35.4%,在切口疝中的应用率为12.5%(p<0.0001)。脐疝术后并发症发生率为3.2%,上腹疝为3.5%,明显低于切口疝的9.2%(p<0.0001)。术后并发症导致的再次手术率也是如此,分别为1.0%、1.2%和4.2%(p<0.0001)。1年随访显示,切口疝的复发率以及需要治疗的慢性疼痛发生率分别显著高于上腹疝,切口疝分别为6.3%和7.9%,上腹疝分别为4.1%和4.3%,脐疝分别为2%和1.9%(p<0.0001)。

结论

由于脐疝、上腹疝和切口疝在治疗方法和治疗结果上存在显著差异,因此应该仅针对单一疝类型比较各种手术技术开展科学研究。

相似文献

3
MILOS and EMILOS repair of primary umbilical and epigastric hernias.MILOS 和 EMILOS 修复脐疝和腹上疝。
Hernia. 2019 Oct;23(5):935-944. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-02056-x. Epub 2019 Sep 30.

引用本文的文献

3
ENGINE-An EHS Project for Future Guidelines.ENGINE——一项面向未来指南的环境、健康与安全项目。
J Abdom Wall Surg. 2024 Jul 12;3:13007. doi: 10.3389/jaws.2024.13007. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

8
Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic review.腹腔镜下腹壁疝修补术:一项系统综述
Surg Endosc. 2009 Jan;23(1):4-15. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0182-8. Epub 2008 Oct 15.

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

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验