• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
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
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
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 @ 2026

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

开放腹股沟疝修补术中自固定与缝合补片固定方法:对临床试验和观察性研究的系统评价

Self-gripping versus sutured mesh fixation methods for open inguinal hernia repair: A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies.

作者信息

Ismail Ammar, Abushouk Abdelrahman Ibrahim, Elmaraezy Ahmed, Abdelkarim Ahmed Helal, Shehata Mohamed, Abozaid Mohamed, Ahmed Hussien, Negida Ahmed

机构信息

Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; NovaMed Medical Research Association, Cairo, Egypt; Medical Research Group of Egypt, Cairo, Egypt.

NovaMed Medical Research Association, Cairo, Egypt; Medical Research Group of Egypt, Cairo, Egypt; Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

出版信息

Surgery. 2017 Jul;162(1):18-36. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.12.028. Epub 2017 Feb 27.

DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2016.12.028
PMID:28249738
Abstract

BACKGROUND

We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of Lichenstein hernia repair using either self-gripping mesh or techniques of sutured mesh fixation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science for all clinical trials and observational studies that compared self-gripping mesh versus sutured mesh fixation in Lichtenstein hernia repair. Combined outcomes were pooled as odds ratios or mean differences in a fixed-effect model, using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software for Windows.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized, controlled trials and 5 cohort studies (n = 3,722 patients) were included in the final analysis. The two groups, using self-gripping mesh or sutured mesh fixation, did not differ significantly in terms of recurrence rate (odds ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.18-2.44; P = .54) or postoperative chronic groin pain (odds ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.54-1.05; P = .09). The operative time was less in the self-gripping mesh group (mean difference = -7.85, 95% confidence interval -9.94 to -5.76; P < .0001). For safety analysis, there were comparable risks between self-gripping mesh and sutured mesh fixation groups in terms of postoperative infection (odds ratio = 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.53-1.23; P = .32), postoperative hematoma (odds ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.7-1.36; P = .9), and urinary retention (odds ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.18-2.44; P = .54).

CONCLUSION

Data from our analysis did not favor either of the two fixation techniques over the other in terms of recurrence or postoperative chronic groin pain. Decreased operative time in the self-gripping mesh group cannot justify a recommendation for its routine use. Longer follow-up studies are needed to compare the risk of long-term recurrence for both meshes.

摘要

背景

我们进行了这项系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较使用自固定补片或缝合补片固定技术的李金斯坦疝修补术的结果。

方法

我们在PubMed、Cochrane CENTRAL、Scopus、Embase和Web of Science中检索了所有比较自固定补片与缝合补片固定在李金斯坦疝修补术中应用的临床试验和观察性研究。使用适用于Windows的综合荟萃分析软件,将合并结果汇总为固定效应模型中的比值比或均值差。

结果

最终分析纳入了12项随机对照试验和5项队列研究(n = 3722例患者)。使用自固定补片或缝合补片固定的两组在复发率(比值比 = 0.66,95%置信区间0.18 - 2.44;P = 0.54)或术后慢性腹股沟疼痛(比值比 = 0.75,95%置信区间0.54 - 1.05;P = 0.09)方面无显著差异。自固定补片组的手术时间较短(均值差 = -7.85,95%置信区间 -9.94至 -5.76;P < 0.0001)。在安全性分析中,自固定补片组和缝合补片固定组在术后感染(比值比 = 0.81,95%置信区间0.53 - 1.23;P = 0.32)、术后血肿(比值比 = 0.97,95%置信区间0.7 - 1.36;P = 0.9)和尿潴留(比值比 = 0.66,95%置信区间0.18 -

相似文献

1
Self-gripping versus sutured mesh fixation methods for open inguinal hernia repair: A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies.开放腹股沟疝修补术中自固定与缝合补片固定方法:对临床试验和观察性研究的系统评价
Surgery. 2017 Jul;162(1):18-36. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.12.028. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
2
Mesh fixation with glue versus suture for chronic pain and recurrence in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty.在李金斯坦腹股沟疝修补术中,使用胶水与缝线进行补片固定对慢性疼痛和复发的影响
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 7;2(2):CD010814. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010814.pub2.
3
Comparison of self-gripping mesh and sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: A meta-analysis of long-term results.开放式腹股沟疝修补术中自固定网片与缝合网片的比较:长期结果的荟萃分析。
Surgery. 2018 Feb;163(2):351-360. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.08.003. Epub 2017 Oct 10.
4
Mesh versus non-mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair.用于腹股沟疝和股疝修补的补片与非补片对比
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 13;9(9):CD011517. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011517.pub2.
5
he Efficacy of Lichtenstein Self-Fixation Mesh and Suture Mesh in Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Meta-Analysis.利氏自固定补片与缝合补片在腹股沟疝修补术中的疗效:一项Meta分析。
Altern Ther Health Med. 2025 Jul;31(4):84-89.
6
Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair.腹腔镜技术与开放技术用于腹股沟疝修补术的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2003(1):CD001785. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001785.
7
Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation.腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术:有效性的系统评价与经济评估
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Apr;9(14):1-203, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta9140.
8
Ilioinguinal Nerve Neurectomy is better than Preservation in Lichtenstein Hernia Repair: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.髂腹股沟神经切除术优于李金斯坦疝修补术中的保留:系统文献回顾和荟萃分析。
World J Surg. 2021 Jun;45(6):1750-1760. doi: 10.1007/s00268-021-05968-x. Epub 2021 Feb 19.
9
Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia.开放式补片与非补片用于股疝和腹股沟疝修补术的比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002(4):CD002197. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002197.
10
Self-gripping versus sutured mesh for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature.自固定补片与缝合补片在腹股沟疝修补术中的应用:当前文献的系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Surg Res. 2013 Dec;185(2):653-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.07.035. Epub 2013 Aug 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Chronic inguinal pain post-hernioplasty. Laparo-endoscopic surgery vs lichtenstein repair: systematic review and meta-analysis.腹股沟疝修补术后慢性疼痛。腹腔镜手术与李金斯坦修补术:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Hernia. 2024 Aug;28(4):1427-1439. doi: 10.1007/s10029-024-03077-x. Epub 2024 Jun 5.
2
Sutureless Repair for Open Treatment of Inguinal Hernia: Three Techniques in Comparison.无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的开放手术:三种技术的比较
J Clin Med. 2024 Jan 19;13(2):589. doi: 10.3390/jcm13020589.
3
Comparison of Postoperative Chronic Groin Pain After Repair of Inguinal Hernia Using Nonabsorbable Versus Absorbable Sutures for Mesh Fixation.
使用不可吸收缝线与可吸收缝线固定补片修复腹股沟疝后慢性腹股沟疼痛的比较。
Cureus. 2023 Feb 27;15(2):e35562. doi: 10.7759/cureus.35562. eCollection 2023 Feb.
4
Cost-effectiveness analysis of mesh fixation techniques for laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia surgeries.网片固定技术在腹腔镜和开放式腹股沟疝手术中的成本效益分析。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Sep 6;22(1):1125. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08491-4.
5
Mesh-fixation technique for inguinal hernia repair: umbrella review.网片固定技术在腹股沟疝修补术中的应用:伞状综述。
BJS Open. 2022 Jul 7;6(4). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac084.
6
Mesh fixation techniques for inguinal hernia repair: an overview of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials.腹股沟疝修补术中网片固定技术:随机对照试验系统评价综述。
Hernia. 2022 Aug;26(4):973-987. doi: 10.1007/s10029-021-02546-x. Epub 2021 Dec 14.
7
Mesh fixation technique for inguinal hernia repair: protocol for an umbrella review with integrated and updated network meta-analysis.网片固定技术在腹股沟疝修补术中的应用:伞式评价与整合更新网络荟萃分析方案。
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 28;9(10):e031742. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031742.
8
Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein repair vs the Valenti technique for inguinal hernia.腹股沟疝的随机对照试验:Lichtenstein 修补术与 Valenti 技术的长期随访。
Hernia. 2019 Jun;23(3):547-554. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-01879-y. Epub 2019 Jan 18.
9
Factors predicting chronic pain after open inguinal hernia repair: a regression analysis of randomized trial comparing three different meshes with three fixation methods (FinnMesh Study).开放腹股沟疝修补术后慢性疼痛的预测因素:一项随机试验的回归分析,该试验比较了三种不同补片与三种固定方法(芬兰补片研究)
Hernia. 2018 Oct;22(5):813-818. doi: 10.1007/s10029-018-1772-6. Epub 2018 May 4.