Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches
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?
Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches
Do you wish to request the book?
Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches
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
Patient perceptions of acute pain and activity disruption following inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-matched comparison of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open approaches
2018
Overview
Few publications describe the potential benefit of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair on acute postoperative groin pain (APGP). This study compared patients’ perceptions of APGP, activity limitation, and overall satisfaction after robotic-assisted- (R), laparoscopic (L), or open (O) inguinal hernia repair (IHR). Random samples of patients from two web-based research panels and surgical practices were screened for patients who underwent IHR between October 28, 2015 and November 1, 2016. Qualified patients were surveyed to assess perceived APGP at 1 week postoperatively, activity disruption, and overall satisfaction. Three cohorts based on operative approach were compared after propensity matching. Propensity scoring resulted in 83 R-IHR matched to 83 L-IHR respondents, while 85 R-IHR matched with 85 O-IHR respondents. R-IHR respondents recalled less APGP compared to respondents who had O-IHR (4.1 ± 0.3 vs 5.6 ± 0.3,
p
< 0.01) but similar APGP compared to L-IHR (4.0 ± 0.3 vs 4.4 ± 0.3,
p
= 0.37). Respondents recalled less activity disruption 1 week postoperatively after R-IHR versus O-IHR (6.1 ± 0.3 vs. 7.3 ± 0.2,
p
< 0.01) but similar levels of activity disruption after R-IHR and L-IHR (6.0 ± 0.3 vs. 6.6 ± 0.27,
p
= 0.32). At the time of the survey, respondents perceived less physical activity disruption after R-IHR compared to O-IHR (1.4 ± 0.2 vs. 2.8 ± 0.4,
p
< 0.01) but similar between R-IHR and L-IHR (1.3 ± 0.2 vs 1.2 ± 0.2,
p
= 0.94). Most respondents felt satisfied with their outcome regardless of operative approach. Patient perceptions of pain and activity disruption differ by approach, suggesting a potential advantage of a minimally invasive technique over open for IHR. Further studies are warranted to determine long-term outcomes regarding pain and quality of life after IHR.
Publisher
Springer London,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
