Prophylactic ilio-inguinal neurectomy in open inguinal hernia repair: A randomized controlled study

P. Bamnodkar, Ramesh Dumbre, Arun Fernandese, Deepak S. Phalgune
{"title":"Prophylactic ilio-inguinal neurectomy in open inguinal hernia repair: A randomized controlled study","authors":"P. Bamnodkar, Ramesh Dumbre, Arun Fernandese, Deepak S. Phalgune","doi":"10.4103/ssj.ssj_59_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Controversies persist regarding excision of ilioinguinal nerve after inguinal hernia repair and the procedure is not widely accepted. The present study was aimed to compare outcomes and its impact on the quality of life between routine ilioinguinal nerve excision, and nerve preservation following Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Materials and Methods: Eighty-six patients scheduled for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair were randomly divided into two equal groups of 43 patients each. Group A patients underwent prophylactic neurectomy, whereas, in Group B patients, the nerve was preserved. Follow-up was done on day one, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months after surgery. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of chronic groin pain, whereas secondary outcome measures were an impact on the quality of life and time to return to work. Inter-group comparison of categorical and continuous variables was done using Fisher's exact test and unpaired t-test respectively. Results: The incidence of postoperative pain at 3 months was 13/43 (30.2%) and 5/43 (11.6%) in Group B and Group A, respectively (P = 0.034). The incidence of postoperative pain at 6 months was 11/43 (25.6%) and 3/43 (7.0%) in Group B and Group A, respectively (P = 0.038). The RAND 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey parameters such as mean social functioning scores at 6 months postoperatively were 88.4 and 82.9 in Group A as Group B, respectively (P = 0.037) and mean pain score was 98.7 and 95.3 in Group A as Group B, respectively (P = 0.047). The mean time to return to work was 4.5 days and 5.7 days in Group A as Group B, respectively (P = 0.002). Conclusion: A routine ilioinguinal neurectomy is a reasonable option for preventing neuralgia when performing Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair.","PeriodicalId":420307,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Surgical Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Surgical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ssj.ssj_59_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Controversies persist regarding excision of ilioinguinal nerve after inguinal hernia repair and the procedure is not widely accepted. The present study was aimed to compare outcomes and its impact on the quality of life between routine ilioinguinal nerve excision, and nerve preservation following Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Materials and Methods: Eighty-six patients scheduled for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair were randomly divided into two equal groups of 43 patients each. Group A patients underwent prophylactic neurectomy, whereas, in Group B patients, the nerve was preserved. Follow-up was done on day one, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months after surgery. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of chronic groin pain, whereas secondary outcome measures were an impact on the quality of life and time to return to work. Inter-group comparison of categorical and continuous variables was done using Fisher's exact test and unpaired t-test respectively. Results: The incidence of postoperative pain at 3 months was 13/43 (30.2%) and 5/43 (11.6%) in Group B and Group A, respectively (P = 0.034). The incidence of postoperative pain at 6 months was 11/43 (25.6%) and 3/43 (7.0%) in Group B and Group A, respectively (P = 0.038). The RAND 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey parameters such as mean social functioning scores at 6 months postoperatively were 88.4 and 82.9 in Group A as Group B, respectively (P = 0.037) and mean pain score was 98.7 and 95.3 in Group A as Group B, respectively (P = 0.047). The mean time to return to work was 4.5 days and 5.7 days in Group A as Group B, respectively (P = 0.002). Conclusion: A routine ilioinguinal neurectomy is a reasonable option for preventing neuralgia when performing Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开放式腹股沟疝修补术中预防性髂-腹股沟神经切除术:一项随机对照研究
背景:腹股沟疝修补术后切除髂腹股沟神经存在争议,手术方式未被广泛接受。本研究旨在比较常规髂腹股沟神经切除和列支敦士登腹股沟疝修复后神经保留的结果及其对生活质量的影响。材料与方法:86例拟行列支敦士登型腹股沟疝修补术的患者随机分为两组,每组43例。A组患者行预防性神经切除术,而B组患者则保留神经。随访时间分别为术后第1天、3个月、6个月和9个月。主要结局指标是慢性腹股沟疼痛的发生率,而次要结局指标是对生活质量和重返工作岗位时间的影响。分类变量和连续变量的组间比较分别采用Fisher精确检验和非配对t检验。结果:B组术后3个月疼痛发生率为13/43 (30.2%),A组为5/43(11.6%),差异有统计学意义(P = 0.034)。B组和A组术后6个月疼痛发生率分别为11/43(25.6%)和3/43 (7.0%)(P = 0.038)。A组与B组术后6个月RAND 36项简短健康调查平均社会功能评分分别为88.4、82.9分(P = 0.037), A组与B组疼痛评分分别为98.7、95.3分(P = 0.047)。A组平均恢复工作时间为4.5天,B组平均恢复工作时间为5.7天(P = 0.002)。结论:常规髂腹股沟神经切除术是预防腹股沟列支敦士登疝修补术中神经痛的合理选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Factors associated with undertriage of trauma patients at level 1 trauma center Textiloma mimicking an intra-abdominal tumor: A case report from a medicolegal point of view Exposure and perception of general surgery residents' toward robotic-assisted surgeries in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Hypocalcemia following thyroid surgery- A prospective study Outcome after surgical management of tropical and alcoholic chronic pancreatitis - A Indian tertiary centre experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1