Suppr超能文献

IPOM 加强修补术与 IPOM 标准修补术治疗切口疝的前瞻性多中心随机对照研究

IPOM plus versus IPOM standard in incisional hernia repair: results of a prospective multicenter trial.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Hospital "A. Rizzoli", LaccoAmeno Aslnapoli2nord, Naples, Italy.

Division of General, Mininvasive and Bariatric Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.

出版信息

Hernia. 2023 Jun;27(3):695-704. doi: 10.1007/s10029-023-02802-2. Epub 2023 May 7.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair is a well-established technique with satisfying outcomes even at long term for the treatment of incisional and ventral hernia. However, the literature debate is still ongoing regarding the preferred surgical technique. Nowadays, two approaches are commonly adopted: the intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (sIPOM) and the intraperitoneal onlay mesh reinforcement with defect closure before mesh placement (pIPOM). The aim of this prospective analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients treated for incisional hernia (IH) with sIPOM and pIPOM after 36 months follow-up in terms of recurrence, quality of life and wound events.

METHODS

Patients receiving pIPOM and sIPOM for IH were actively followed up for 36 months. At the outpatient clinic, hernia recurrence (HR), mesh bulging (MB), quality of life with the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) and wound events were assessed.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and January 2019, 98 patients underwent a pIPOM and 89 underwent an sIPOM. At 36 months, nine patients (4 in pIPOM and 5 in sIPOM) experienced an HR, while MB was recorded in four patients in pIPOM and nine in sIPOM. No statistically significant difference could be identified also in terms of final GIQLI score and wound events.

CONCLUSIONS

LVHR with or without fascial closure, also in our study, provides satisfactory results in terms of safety and efficacy. The discordant results in the literature are probably related to independent variables such as the type of mesh, the type of suture and closure technique. Therefore, was the funeral of sIPOM done too early? STUDY DATASET IS AVAILABLE ON CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV ID

NCT05712213.

摘要

目的

腹腔镜腹疝修补术是一种成熟的技术,即使在长期治疗切口疝和腹疝方面,也能取得满意的效果。然而,文献中的争论仍在继续,主要集中在首选的手术技术上。目前,两种方法通常被采用:腹腔内补片修补术(sIPOM)和腹腔内补片强化术,即在放置补片前关闭缺损(pIPOM)。本前瞻性分析的目的是比较接受 sIPOM 和 pIPOM 治疗的切口疝(IH)患者在 36 个月随访时的术后结果,包括复发率、生活质量和伤口事件,以评估这两种方法。

方法

对接受 pIPOM 和 sIPOM 治疗 IH 的患者进行主动随访 36 个月。在门诊,评估疝复发(HR)、补片膨出(MB)、生活质量(GIQLI)和伤口事件。

结果

2015 年 1 月至 2019 年 1 月,98 例患者接受 pIPOM,89 例患者接受 sIPOM。36 个月时,9 例患者(pIPOM 组 4 例,sIPOM 组 5 例)发生 HR,pIPOM 组有 4 例和 sIPOM 组有 9 例发生 MB。在最终 GIQLI 评分和伤口事件方面,两组也无统计学差异。

结论

LVHR 无论是否进行筋膜关闭,在本研究中都具有良好的安全性和疗效。文献中的不一致结果可能与独立变量有关,如补片类型、缝合类型和关闭技术。因此,sIPOM 是否过早被宣判死刑?研究数据集可在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上获取。

注册号

NCT05712213。

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