Acar Turan, Acar Nihan, Sür Yunus, Kamer Erdinç, Atahan Kemal, Genç Hüdai, Hacıyanlı Mehmet
Department of General Surgery, Izmir Katip Celebi University Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Sisli Etfal Hastan Tip Bul. 2020 Mar 24;54(1):23-28. doi: 10.14744/SEMB.2019.23334. eCollection 2020.
The selection of incision type, closure type of incision and the suture material are some of the important factors to prevent hernia development. We should aim to perform the best procedure with the best technique to reduce the risk of recurrence. Surgical options include primary repair and open or laparoscopic repair with mesh. Mesh repairs can be performed as onlay, sublay or inlay according to the area where the mesh is to be laid. In this retrospective study, our main goal was to compare the recurrence rates in patients who underwent incisional hernia repair with onlay and inlay mesh techniques.
This retrospective study included 185 patients who underwent surgery due to incisional hernia in our clinic between January 2012 and October 2017. Patients were divided into two groups according to the technique as Group 1 with onlay mesh repair and Group 2 with inlay mesh repair. The same type of mesh (prolen) was applied to all patients.
There were 121 patients in Group 1 and 64 patients in Group 2. According to data we obtained, 64.3% of the patients were women and the mean age of all patients was 58.4±16.4 years. Postoperative complications (such as seroma-hematoma, surgical site infection, mesh rejection, postoperative ileus) developed in 29.2% (n=54) of the patients. The length of hospital stay was 4.2±3 days in Group 1 and 5.6±5 days in Group 2. The mean follow-up period was 48.6 months (24-93 months), with the recurrence rates of 5.8% (n=7) in Group 1 and 10.9% (n=7) in Group 2, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups concerning comorbidity, postoperative complications, the length of hospitalization stay and recurrence.
We believe that the onlay technique will be more appropriate than the inlay technique when only prolen mesh is preferred because the recurrence rates are higher in the inlay technique.
切口类型的选择、切口闭合方式以及缝合材料是预防疝形成的一些重要因素。我们应致力于采用最佳技术实施最佳手术,以降低复发风险。手术选择包括一期修复以及使用补片的开放或腹腔镜修补术。补片修补术可根据补片放置区域采用覆盖法、衬入法或植入法进行。在这项回顾性研究中,我们的主要目标是比较采用覆盖法和植入法补片技术进行切口疝修补术患者的复发率。
这项回顾性研究纳入了2012年1月至2017年10月期间在我院因切口疝接受手术的185例患者。根据技术将患者分为两组,第1组采用覆盖法补片修补术,第2组采用植入法补片修补术。所有患者均使用同类型补片(普理灵)。
第1组有121例患者,第2组有64例患者。根据我们获得的数据,64.3%的患者为女性,所有患者的平均年龄为58.4±16.4岁。29.2%(n = 54)的患者出现术后并发症(如血清肿 - 血肿、手术部位感染、补片排斥反应、术后肠梗阻)。第1组的住院时间为4.2±3天,第2组为5.6±5天。平均随访期为48.6个月(24 - 93个月),第1组和第2组的复发率分别为5.8%(n = 7)和10.9%(n = 7)。两组在合并症、术后并发症、住院时间和复发方面存在统计学显著差异。
我们认为,当仅选用普理灵补片时,覆盖法技术比植入法技术更合适,因为植入法技术的复发率更高。