Advantages of ultrasound-guided reduction and elective surgery versus emergency repair for incarcerated obturator hernia.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Surgery Today Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1007/s00595-025-03014-0
Yoshiyuki Kiyasu, Naoki Oka, Makio Mike, Hiroshi Kusanagi
{"title":"Advantages of ultrasound-guided reduction and elective surgery versus emergency repair for incarcerated obturator hernia.","authors":"Yoshiyuki Kiyasu, Naoki Oka, Makio Mike, Hiroshi Kusanagi","doi":"10.1007/s00595-025-03014-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the benefits of ultrasound-guided reduction (UGR) followed by elective versus emergency repair for incarcerated obturator hernia (OH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort study. Before UGR implementation, all patients with incarcerated OH underwent emergency surgery. To compare the UGR candidates fairly, only patients who did not require bowel resection were classified as the emergency group. Following UGR implementation, the patients without bowel necrosis, based on our criteria, underwent UGR. Among these, those who underwent elective repair were classified into the elective group. The surgical outcomes were compared between the groups and are presented as the median (range).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 60 patients with incarcerated OH, 23 were in the emergency group and 11 in the elective group. UGR was successful in 16 of 17 cases (94%). The elective group had significantly shorter times to first defecation (4 [1-7] vs. 0 [0-1]) and meal initiation (3 [1-8] vs. 1 [1-3] days) than the emergency group. Although not statistically significant, the mesh repair rate was higher in the elective group (100% vs. 78%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UGR can be safely performed with an appropriate diagnosis. Compared with emergency surgery, UGR followed by elective repair led to reduced postoperative ileus and elevated mesh repair rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":22163,"journal":{"name":"Surgery Today","volume":" ","pages":"1155-1161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery Today","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-025-03014-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the benefits of ultrasound-guided reduction (UGR) followed by elective versus emergency repair for incarcerated obturator hernia (OH).

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. Before UGR implementation, all patients with incarcerated OH underwent emergency surgery. To compare the UGR candidates fairly, only patients who did not require bowel resection were classified as the emergency group. Following UGR implementation, the patients without bowel necrosis, based on our criteria, underwent UGR. Among these, those who underwent elective repair were classified into the elective group. The surgical outcomes were compared between the groups and are presented as the median (range).

Results: Among the 60 patients with incarcerated OH, 23 were in the emergency group and 11 in the elective group. UGR was successful in 16 of 17 cases (94%). The elective group had significantly shorter times to first defecation (4 [1-7] vs. 0 [0-1]) and meal initiation (3 [1-8] vs. 1 [1-3] days) than the emergency group. Although not statistically significant, the mesh repair rate was higher in the elective group (100% vs. 78%, respectively).

Conclusions: UGR can be safely performed with an appropriate diagnosis. Compared with emergency surgery, UGR followed by elective repair led to reduced postoperative ileus and elevated mesh repair rates.

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
超声引导下复位和选择性手术与嵌顿性闭孔疝急诊修复的优势。
目的:比较超声引导复位(UGR)后择期与急诊修复嵌顿性闭孔疝(OH)的益处。方法:回顾性队列研究。在实施UGR之前,所有嵌顿OH患者都接受了紧急手术。为了公平地比较UGR候选者,只有不需要肠切除术的患者被归类为急诊组。在实施UGR后,根据我们的标准,没有肠坏死的患者接受了UGR。其中,择期修复者分为择期组。比较两组之间的手术结果,并以中位数(范围)表示。结果:60例OH嵌顿患者中,急诊组23例,择期组11例。17例中有16例UGR成功(94%)。择期组首次排便时间(4 [1-7]vs. 0[0-1])和开始进食时间(3 [1-8]vs. 1[1-3]天)明显短于急诊组。虽然没有统计学意义,但选择性组的补片修复率更高(分别为100%和78%)。结论:在适当的诊断下,UGR可以安全进行。与急诊手术相比,UGR术后选择性修复减少了术后肠梗阻,提高了补片修复率。
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
Surgery Today
Surgery Today 医学-外科
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
208
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Surgery Today is the official journal of the Japan Surgical Society. The main purpose of the journal is to provide a place for the publication of high-quality papers documenting recent advances and new developments in all fields of surgery, both clinical and experimental. The journal welcomes original papers, review articles, and short communications, as well as short technical reports("How to do it"). The "How to do it" section will includes short articles on methods or techniques recommended for practical surgery. Papers submitted to the journal are reviewed by an international editorial board. Field of interest: All fields of surgery.
期刊最新文献
Prognostic value of number of harvested lymph nodes in Stage III colorectal cancer patients. Prognostic significance of the C-reactive protein-albumin-lymphocyte index in patients with unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer treated with First-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. Preoperative chemotherapy and enteral nutrition via a nasogastric tube do not improve preoperative nutritional status and survival outcomes for thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with esophageal stenosis. Can we discharge patients on the same day? a reliability analysis of early discharge after laparoscopic appendectomy. Telesurgery: from feasibility to reality: emerging technical and governance challenges.
×
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