Riet M van't, W W Vrijland, J F Lange, W C J Hop, J Jeekel, H J Bonjer
{"title":"Mesh repair of incisional hernia: comparison of laparoscopic and open repair.","authors":"Riet M van't, W W Vrijland, J F Lange, W C J Hop, J Jeekel, H J Bonjer","doi":"10.1080/000000000000003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare our results of open and laparoscopic mesh repair of incisional hernias.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Teaching hospitals, The Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>All patients who had had a laparoscopic (n = 25) or an open (n = 76) mesh repair of incisional hernia between January 1996 and January 2000.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Physical examination at the time of the study.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Morbidity and recurrence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The groups were comparable. 11 patients (14%) developed postoperative infections after open repair and 1 (4%) after laparoscopic repair (p = 0.29). Median hospital stay was 5 days (range 1-19) in the open group and 4 (range 1-11) in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.28). The 2-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 18% after open repair (median follow-up of 17 months (range 1-46) and 15% after laparoscopic repair (median follow-up of 15 months, range 1-44). Recurrences in the laparoscopic group were all among the first 7 cases in which the mesh was fixed with staples alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were fewer infections and hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group, but not significantly so. Recurrence rates were comparable.</p>","PeriodicalId":22411,"journal":{"name":"The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica","volume":"168 12","pages":"684-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/000000000000003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38
Abstract
Objective: To compare our results of open and laparoscopic mesh repair of incisional hernias.
Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: Teaching hospitals, The Netherlands.
Subjects: All patients who had had a laparoscopic (n = 25) or an open (n = 76) mesh repair of incisional hernia between January 1996 and January 2000.
Interventions: Physical examination at the time of the study.
Main outcome measures: Morbidity and recurrence.
Results: The groups were comparable. 11 patients (14%) developed postoperative infections after open repair and 1 (4%) after laparoscopic repair (p = 0.29). Median hospital stay was 5 days (range 1-19) in the open group and 4 (range 1-11) in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.28). The 2-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 18% after open repair (median follow-up of 17 months (range 1-46) and 15% after laparoscopic repair (median follow-up of 15 months, range 1-44). Recurrences in the laparoscopic group were all among the first 7 cases in which the mesh was fixed with staples alone.
Conclusion: There were fewer infections and hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group, but not significantly so. Recurrence rates were comparable.