A retrospective noninferiority study of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair feasibility for recently graduated surgeons in Thailand.

Thanat Tantinam, Tawadchai Treeratanawikran, Pattiya Kamoncharoen, Ekawit Srimaneerak, Metpiya Siripoonsap, Thawatchai Phoonkaew
{"title":"A retrospective noninferiority study of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair feasibility for recently graduated surgeons in Thailand.","authors":"Thanat Tantinam, Tawadchai Treeratanawikran, Pattiya Kamoncharoen, Ekawit Srimaneerak, Metpiya Siripoonsap, Thawatchai Phoonkaew","doi":"10.7602/jmis.2024.27.2.85","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The feasibility of starting laparoscopic surgery among newly graduated surgeons lacking extensive experience in open approaches remains a topic of interest. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LHR) compared to open inguinal hernia repair (OHR) in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was conducted on inguinal hernia surgeries performed by a single recently graduated surgeon during the learning phase. Patient data were collected from July 2021 to November 2022 with a focus on demographics, intraoperative details, and 1-year postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority testing was employed with a predetermined margin of 15% to compare the complication rates, recurrence rates, and other secondary outcomes between LHR and OHR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study cohort comprised 66 patients (OHR group, n = 45 and LHR group, n = 21). Patient characteristics were similar between groups. No significant differences were observed in the complication rates (OHR, 26.7% and LHR, 19.0%; <i>p</i> = 0.50) or recurrence rates (OHR, 2.2% and LHR, 4.8%; <i>p</i> = 0.54). The LHR group demonstrated noninferior outcomes compared with the OHR group in terms of complication, recurrence, readmission, and reoperation rates. Except for the operative time, secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LHR is a feasible initiation for recently graduated surgeons, demonstrating noninferior outcomes compared with open repair. Therefore, the belief that one must master open surgery before beginning laparoscopy may be untrue.</p>","PeriodicalId":73832,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11187610/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2024.27.2.85","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The feasibility of starting laparoscopic surgery among newly graduated surgeons lacking extensive experience in open approaches remains a topic of interest. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LHR) compared to open inguinal hernia repair (OHR) in this population.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted on inguinal hernia surgeries performed by a single recently graduated surgeon during the learning phase. Patient data were collected from July 2021 to November 2022 with a focus on demographics, intraoperative details, and 1-year postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority testing was employed with a predetermined margin of 15% to compare the complication rates, recurrence rates, and other secondary outcomes between LHR and OHR.

Results: The study cohort comprised 66 patients (OHR group, n = 45 and LHR group, n = 21). Patient characteristics were similar between groups. No significant differences were observed in the complication rates (OHR, 26.7% and LHR, 19.0%; p = 0.50) or recurrence rates (OHR, 2.2% and LHR, 4.8%; p = 0.54). The LHR group demonstrated noninferior outcomes compared with the OHR group in terms of complication, recurrence, readmission, and reoperation rates. Except for the operative time, secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups.

Conclusion: LHR is a feasible initiation for recently graduated surgeons, demonstrating noninferior outcomes compared with open repair. Therefore, the belief that one must master open surgery before beginning laparoscopy may be untrue.

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
一项针对泰国新毕业外科医生的腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术可行性非劣效性回顾性研究。
目的:对于缺乏开腹手术经验的新毕业外科医生来说,开始腹腔镜手术的可行性仍然是一个值得关注的话题。我们旨在评估腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术(LHR)与开放式腹股沟疝修补术(OHR)相比,在这一人群中的安全性和有效性:这项回顾性队列研究针对一名刚毕业的外科医生在学习阶段进行的腹股沟疝手术。患者数据收集时间为 2021 年 7 月至 2022 年 11 月,重点关注人口统计学、术中细节和术后 1 年的结果。采用非劣效性测试,以 15%的预定差值比较 LHR 和 OHR 的并发症发生率、复发率和其他次要结果:研究队列由 66 名患者组成(OHR 组,n = 45;LHR 组,n = 21)。两组患者的特征相似。并发症发生率(OHR,26.7%;LHR,19.0%;P = 0.50)或复发率(OHR,2.2%;LHR,4.8%;P = 0.54)无明显差异。在并发症、复发率、再入院率和再次手术率方面,LHR 组的结果均优于 OHR 组。除手术时间外,各组的次要结果无明显差异:结论:对于刚毕业的外科医生来说,LHR 是一个可行的入门手术,与开放式修复术相比,其效果并不逊色。因此,认为在开始腹腔镜手术之前必须掌握开腹手术的观点可能是不正确的。
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
Acute peritonitis caused by a ruptured urachal cyst accompanied by omphalitis in an adult: a case report and literature review. Analyzing the emergence of surgical robotics in Africa: a scoping review of pioneering procedures, platforms utilized, and outcome meta-analysis. Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States. Automated machine learning with R: AutoML tools for beginners in clinical research. Is prophylactic abdominal drainage mandatory in laparoscopic hemicolectomy?
×
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:481959085
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