Suppr超能文献

开放式 IPOM 与下腔静脉后技术治疗大型切口疝的结果比较:来自 Herniamed 注册中心的 9091 例患者的倾向评分匹配比较。

What is the outcome of the open IPOM versus sublay technique in the treatment of larger incisional hernias?: A propensity score-matched comparison of 9091 patients from the Herniamed Registry.

机构信息

Department of Surgery and Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital of Charité Medical School, Vivantes Hospital, Neue Bergstrasse 6, 13585, Berlin, Germany.

Department of Surgery I - Section Coloproctology and Hernia Surgery, Lukas Hospital, Preussenstr. 84, 41464, Neuss, Germany.

出版信息

Hernia. 2021 Feb;25(1):23-31. doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02143-4. Epub 2020 Feb 25.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

In an Expert Consensus guided by systematic review, the panel agreed that for open elective incisional hernia repair, sublay mesh location is preferred, but open intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) may be useful in certain settings. This analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry aimed to compare the outcomes of open IPOM and sublay technique.

METHODS

Propensity score matching of 9091 patients with elective incisional hernia repair and with defect width ≥ 4 cm was performed. The following matching variables were selected: age, gender, risk factors, ASA score, preoperative pain, defect size, and defect localization.

RESULTS

For the 1977 patients with open IPOM repair and 7114 patients with sublay repair, n = 1938 (98%) pairs were formed. No differences were seen between the two groups with regard to the intraoperative, postoperative and general complications, complication-related reoperations and recurrences. But significant disadvantages were identified for the open IPOM repair in respect of pain on exertion (17.1% vs. 13.7%; p = 0.007), pain at rest (10.4% vs. 8.3%; p = 0.040) and chronic pain requiring treatment (8.8% vs. 5.8%; p < 0.001), in addition to rates of 3.8%, 1.1% and 1.1%, respectively, occurring in both matched patients. No relationship with tacker mesh fixation was identified. There are only very few reports in the literature with comparable findings.

CONCLUSION

Compared with sublay repair, open IPOM repair appears to pose a higher risk of chronic pain. This finding concords with the Expert Consensus recommending that incisional hernia should preferably be repaired using the sublay technique.

摘要

简介

在一项基于系统评价的专家共识指导下,专家组一致认为,对于开放式择期切口疝修补术,推荐使用下置式补片,但开放式腹腔内上置式补片(IPOM)在某些情况下可能有用。本研究对 Herniamed 注册中心的数据进行了分析,旨在比较开放式 IPOM 和下置式技术的结果。

方法

对 9091 例择期切口疝修补术患者进行倾向评分匹配,纳入标准为缺损宽度≥4cm。选择了以下匹配变量:年龄、性别、危险因素、ASA 评分、术前疼痛、缺损大小和缺损定位。

结果

在 1977 例接受开放式 IPOM 修补术和 7114 例接受下置式修补术的患者中,有 1938 对(98%)患者进行了匹配。两组患者在术中、术后和总体并发症、与并发症相关的再次手术和复发方面无差异。但是,开放式 IPOM 修补术在用力时疼痛(17.1%比 13.7%;p=0.007)、休息时疼痛(10.4%比 8.3%;p=0.040)和需要治疗的慢性疼痛(8.8%比 5.8%;p<0.001)方面存在显著劣势,同时匹配患者中分别有 3.8%、1.1%和 1.1%的患者出现上述情况。与钉合补片固定无关。文献中仅有极少数具有类似发现的报道。

结论

与下置式修补术相比,开放式 IPOM 修补术似乎有更高的慢性疼痛风险。这一发现与专家共识一致,即切口疝应优先采用下置式技术进行修补。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/24da/7867529/655e0f9c73eb/10029_2020_2143_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

4
Outcomes of recurrent incisional hernia repair by open and laparoscopic approaches: a propensity score-matched comparison.
Hernia. 2023 Oct;27(5):1289-1298. doi: 10.1007/s10029-023-02833-9. Epub 2023 Aug 1.
6
Analysis of 4,015 recurrent incisional hernia repairs from the Herniamed registry: risk factors and outcomes.
Hernia. 2021 Feb;25(1):61-75. doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02263-x. Epub 2020 Jul 15.
7
Small and Laterally Placed Incisional Hernias Can be Safely Managed with an Onlay Repair.
World J Surg. 2019 Aug;43(8):1921-1927. doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-04980-6.
8
What are the trends in incisional hernia repair? Real-world data over 10 years from the Herniamed registry.
Hernia. 2021 Apr;25(2):255-265. doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02319-y. Epub 2020 Oct 19.
10
Incisional hernia repair following pancreatic surgery-open vs laparoscopic approach.
Hernia. 2024 Feb;28(1):155-165. doi: 10.1007/s10029-023-02901-0. Epub 2023 Oct 30.

引用本文的文献

3
Ventral Hernia Repair With a Hybrid Absorbable-permanent Preperitoneal Mesh.
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2024 Dec 1;34(6):596-602. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000001327.
4
Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM) in the Treatment of Ventral Hernias: Technique Discussion Points.
Cureus. 2024 May 27;16(5):e61199. doi: 10.7759/cureus.61199. eCollection 2024 May.
6
Clinical outcomes and costs of retromuscular and intraperitoneal onlay mesh techniques in robotic incisional hernia repair.
Surg Endosc. 2024 May;38(5):2850-2856. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10776-0. Epub 2024 Apr 3.
8
Real-world data and evidence in pain research: a qualitative systematic review of methods in current practice.
Pain Rep. 2023 Feb 1;8(2):e1057. doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000001057. eCollection 2023 Mar-Apr.

本文引用的文献

2
Small and Laterally Placed Incisional Hernias Can be Safely Managed with an Onlay Repair.
World J Surg. 2019 Aug;43(8):1921-1927. doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-04980-6.
4
Open Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM) Technique for Incisional Hernia Repair.
Front Surg. 2018 Oct 23;5:66. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00066. eCollection 2018.
5
What Is the Current Knowledge About Sublay/Retro-Rectus Repair of Incisional Hernias?
Front Surg. 2018 Aug 13;5:47. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00047. eCollection 2018.
7
Comparison of hernia registries: the CORE project.
Hernia. 2018 Aug;22(4):561-575. doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1724-6. Epub 2018 Jan 6.
8
What are the essential features of a successful surgical registry? a systematic review.
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 24;7(9):e017373. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017373.
9
The Importance of Registries in the Postmarketing Surveillance of Surgical Meshes.
Ann Surg. 2018 Dec;268(6):1097-1104. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002326.
10
Ventral Hernia Management: Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review.
Ann Surg. 2017 Jan;265(1):80-89. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001701.

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