Comparison of modified tumescent and conventional laparoscopic transabdominal pre-peritoneal repair in the patients of inguinal hernia: A randomised control trial.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.4103/jmas.jmas_99_24
Kanika Sharma, Avinash Koul, Gopal Puri, Yashvant Singh Rathore, Rajinder Kumar Chrungoo
{"title":"Comparison of modified tumescent and conventional laparoscopic transabdominal pre-peritoneal repair in the patients of inguinal hernia: A randomised control trial.","authors":"Kanika Sharma, Avinash Koul, Gopal Puri, Yashvant Singh Rathore, Rajinder Kumar Chrungoo","doi":"10.4103/jmas.jmas_99_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Inguinal hernia surgery, a common procedure worldwide, continues to develop to achieve minimal access and tension-free repairs. However, a universally accepted technique has yet to be developed. Our study introduces a new approach, a modified tumescent transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP), to a low-cost setting. We then compare its safety and efficacy with the conventional TAPP, providing a new perspective on hernia repair methods.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>The study was conducted between April 2016 and September 2017 at the department of surgery in a medical college in Jammu. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to either the conventional TAPP group or the tumescent TAPP group using computer-generated randomisation. In the tumescent group, we carefully administered a tumescent solution into the pre-peritoneal space after creating pneumoperitoneum and then compared the effectiveness and safety of the two procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our study revealed significant differences in various aspects between the two groups. In the conventional group, 16.7% of patients experienced challenging peritoneal flap dissection, while none in the tumescent group faced this issue. In addition, none of the patients in the tumescent group had an intraoperative haemorrhage. The conventional group had a mean operating time of 100.4 ± 11.21 min. On the other hand, the tumescent group had a significantly shorter mean operating time of 84 ± 13.47 min. The complication rates were 16.7% in the tumescent group and 30% in the conventional group. After the surgery, 13.3% of patients in the conventional group reported persistent pain, compared to only one patient in the tumescent group, which was statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study demonstrates that tumescent TAPP can overcome the challenges of conventional TAPP surgery, offering practical benefits such as reduced bleeding, easier dissection, decreased post-operative pain and shorter operating time. Administering tumescent solution before TAPP repair of inguinal hernia provides technical and clinical advantages, suggesting the potential for shorter surgeries and a quicker learning curve.</p>","PeriodicalId":48905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_99_24","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Inguinal hernia surgery, a common procedure worldwide, continues to develop to achieve minimal access and tension-free repairs. However, a universally accepted technique has yet to be developed. Our study introduces a new approach, a modified tumescent transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP), to a low-cost setting. We then compare its safety and efficacy with the conventional TAPP, providing a new perspective on hernia repair methods.

Patients and methods: The study was conducted between April 2016 and September 2017 at the department of surgery in a medical college in Jammu. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to either the conventional TAPP group or the tumescent TAPP group using computer-generated randomisation. In the tumescent group, we carefully administered a tumescent solution into the pre-peritoneal space after creating pneumoperitoneum and then compared the effectiveness and safety of the two procedures.

Results: Our study revealed significant differences in various aspects between the two groups. In the conventional group, 16.7% of patients experienced challenging peritoneal flap dissection, while none in the tumescent group faced this issue. In addition, none of the patients in the tumescent group had an intraoperative haemorrhage. The conventional group had a mean operating time of 100.4 ± 11.21 min. On the other hand, the tumescent group had a significantly shorter mean operating time of 84 ± 13.47 min. The complication rates were 16.7% in the tumescent group and 30% in the conventional group. After the surgery, 13.3% of patients in the conventional group reported persistent pain, compared to only one patient in the tumescent group, which was statistically significant.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that tumescent TAPP can overcome the challenges of conventional TAPP surgery, offering practical benefits such as reduced bleeding, easier dissection, decreased post-operative pain and shorter operating time. Administering tumescent solution before TAPP repair of inguinal hernia provides technical and clinical advantages, suggesting the potential for shorter surgeries and a quicker learning curve.

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
改良腹股沟疝腹腔镜经腹膜前修补术与传统腹腔镜经腹膜前修补术的比较:一项随机对照试验。
腹股沟疝手术,一种常见的程序,在世界范围内,继续发展,以实现最小的访问和无张力修复。然而,一种被普遍接受的技术尚未被开发出来。我们的研究引入了一种低成本的新方法,改良的肿胀经腹腹膜前(TAPP)。然后我们将其与传统TAPP的安全性和有效性进行比较,为疝修补方法提供新的视角。患者和方法:该研究于2016年4月至2017年9月在查谟一所医学院的外科进行。60例患者随机分为常规TAPP组和肿胀TAPP组。在肿胀组,我们在形成气腹后小心地将肿胀溶液注入腹膜前间隙,然后比较两种方法的有效性和安全性。结果:我们的研究揭示了两组在各方面的显著差异。在常规组中,16.7%的患者经历了挑战性的腹膜瓣剥离,而肿胀组中没有患者面临这一问题。此外,肿胀组无一例患者术中出血。常规组的平均手术时间为100.4±11.21 min,肿胀组的平均手术时间为84±13.47 min,肿胀组的并发症发生率为16.7%,而常规组的并发症发生率为30%。手术后,常规组中有13.3%的患者报告持续疼痛,而肿胀组中只有1例患者报告持续疼痛,这具有统计学意义。结论:我们的研究表明,肿胀TAPP可以克服传统TAPP手术的挑战,具有减少出血、更容易剥离、减少术后疼痛和缩短手术时间等实际优势。在TAPP修复腹股沟疝前使用肿胀溶液具有技术和临床优势,提示手术时间可能更短,学习曲线更快。
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Minimal Access Surgery (JMAS), the official publication of Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons, launched in early 2005. The JMAS, a quarterly publication, is the first English-language journal from India, as also from this part of the world, dedicated to Minimal Access Surgery. The JMAS boasts an outstanding editorial board comprising of Indian and international experts in the field.
期刊最新文献
Innovative technique of corking the lumen of an intraoperatively decompressed turgid gall bladder with surgical gauze to prevent gall bladder stone/bile spillage during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Single-docking robot-assisted radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy with partial left nephrectomy in a patient with synchronous pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm and clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Utilising uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pericardial window: A 12-year single-centre experience in the diagnosis and treatment of pericardial effusion. Effect of intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure on post-operative pulmonary complications in overweight patients undergoing elective laparoscopic hernia surgery: A prospective randomised controlled trial. Stitch-induced caecal fecolith: An unusual long-term complication following laparoscopic appendicectomy.
×
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