Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of slit mesh versus nonslit mesh in laparoscopic extraperitoneal hernia repair
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of slit mesh versus nonslit mesh in laparoscopic extraperitoneal hernia repair
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of slit mesh versus nonslit mesh in laparoscopic extraperitoneal hernia repair
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of slit mesh versus nonslit mesh in laparoscopic extraperitoneal hernia repair
2018
Overview
Endoscopic hernia repair integrates the advantages of tension-free preperitoneal mesh support of the groin with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery procedures.
To compare outcomes between slit mesh (SM) and nonslit mesh (NSM) placement in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair.
This is a retrospective study of 353 patients who underwent TEP inguinal hernia repair between January 2010 and December 2011. One hundred forty-nine and 154 hernias were operated on in the SM and NSM groups, respectively. Postoperative complications, recurrence, early postoperative pain, and chronic pain levels were evaluated.
In a total of 303 patients, hernia repair was performed as 395 direct and indirect hernias. Nonslit mesh was converted from TEP to transabdominal preperitoneal patch plasty (TAPP) in 4 patients in the group and 6 patients in the slit mesh group. The average operation time of the SM group was significantly higher than that of the NSM group (p < 0.001). In the evaluation of early postoperative pain, VAS levels of the NSM group were statistically significantly lower than those of the SR group in all evaluations (p = 0.001). The pain rate of the SM group after 3 months of chronic pain was significantly higher than that of the NSM group (p = 0.004). There was no difference in recurrence rate, 6
month chronic pain, wound infection or wound hematoma.
The use of SM and NSM in TEP operations is not different in terms of recurrence and complications. However, the use of NSM gives better results in terms of early postoperative pain and chronic pain.
Publisher
Termedia Publishing House,Medycyna Praktyczna
Subject
