Randomized clinical trial of self-gripping mesh <i>versus</i> sutured mesh for Lichtenstein hernia repair

Jørgensen, Lars N.; Sommer, Thorbjørn; Assaadzadeh, S.; Strand, Lasse; Dorfelt, A; Hensler, Margaret; Rosenberg, Jacob

doi:10.1002/bjs.9006

Cited by 59 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Three other randomised studies comparing atraumatic (cyanoacrylate glue, self-fixating mesh) vs. suture fixation in Lichtenstein hernioplasty with a large pore mesh showed no difference in acute or chronic pain [34][35][36]. Atraumatic mesh fixation (glue, self-fixating mesh) is more expensive than standard fixation, although the operation time was shorter in the majority of the studies.…”

Section: Open Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients

Miserez

Peeters

Aufenacker

et al. 2014

Hernia

366

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: In 2009, the European Hernia Society published the EHS Guidelines for the Treatment of Inguinal Hernia in Adult Patients. The Guidelines contain recommendations for the treatment of inguinal hernia from diagnosis till aftercare. The guidelines expired January 1, 2012. To keep them updated, a revision of the guidelines was planned including new level 1 evidence. Methods: The original Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine ranking was used. All relevant level 1A and level 1B literature from May 2008 to June 2010 was searched (Medline and Cochrane) by the Working Group members. All chapters were attributed to the two responsible authors in the initial guidelines document. One new chapter on fixation techniques was added. The quality was assessed by the Working Group members during a 2-day meeting and the data were analysed, especially with respect to any change in the level and/or text of any of the conclusions or recommendations of the initial guidelines. In the end, all relevant references published until January 1, 2013 were included. The final text was approved by all Working Group members. Results: For the following topics, the conclusions and/or recommendations have been changed: indications for treatment, treatment of inguinal hernia, day surgery, antibiotic prophylaxis, training, postoperative pain control and chronic pain. The addendum contains all current level 1 conclusions, Grade A recommendations and new Grade B recommendations based on new level 1 evidence (with the changes in bold). Conclusions: Despite the fact that the Working Group responsible for it tried to represent most kinds of surgeons treating inguinal hernias, such general guidelines inevitably must be fitted to the daily practice of every individual surgeon treating his/her patients. There is no doubt that the future of guideline implementation will strongly depend on the development of easy to use decision support algorithms tailored to the individual patient and on evaluating the effect of guideline implementation on surgical outcome. At the 35th International Congress of the EHS in Gdansk, Poland (May 12-15, 2013), it was decided that the EHS, IEHS and EAES will collaborate from now on with the final goal to publish new joint guidelines, most likely in 2015

show abstract

Section: Open Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients

Miserez

Peeters

Aufenacker

et al. 2014

Hernia

366

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such surgery-related problems have diminished albeit not completely disappeared after the introduction of a repair technique using selfgripping light-weight mesh [20,21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized comparison of the feasibility of three anesthetic techniques for day-case open inguinal hernia repair

Péré

Harju

Kairaluoma

et al. 2016

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study objective: Comparison of local anesthetic infiltration (LAI), spinal anesthesia (SPIN) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) for open inguinal herniorrhaphy. We hypothesized that patients receiving LAI could be discharged faster than SPIN and TIVA patients. Design: Randomized, prospective trial. Setting: University hospital day-surgery center. Patients: 156 adult male patients (ASA 1-3) undergoing day-case open inguinal herniorrhaphy. Interventions: Patients were randomized to either LAI (lidocaine + ropivacaine), SPIN (bupivacaine + fentanyl) or TIVA (propofol + remifentanil). Perioperative Ringer infusion was 1.5 mL/h. Urinary bladder was scanned before and after surgery. Interviews were performed on postoperative days 1, 7 and 90. Measurements: Duration of surgery, duration of the patients' stay in the operating room and time until their readiness for discharge home. Patient satisfaction and adverse effects were registered. Main results: Surgery lasted longer in LAI group (median 40 min) than in SPIN group (35 min) (P = .003) and TIVA group (33 min) (P b .001). Although surgery was shortest in TIVA group, TIVA patients stayed longer in the operating room than LAI patients (P = .001). Time until readiness for discharge was shorter in LAI group (93 min) than in TIVA (147 min) and SPIN (190 min) groups (P b .001). Supplementary lidocaine infiltration was given to 32 LAI patients, and IV fentanyl to 29 LAI and 4 SPIN patients. Ephedrine was required in 34 TIVA, 5 LAI and 5 SPIN patients. One SPIN and three LAI patients had to be given TIVA and another SPIN patient LAI to complete the operations. Urinary retention was absent. Discomfort in the scar (26%) three months postoperatively was not anesthesia-related. Conclusions: Logistically, LAI was superior because of the fastest recovery postoperatively. The anesthetic techniques were adequate for surgery in all but a few LAI and SPIN patients. Lack of urinary retention was probably related to the small IV infusion volumes.

show abstract

“…Thirty-two studies (40%) had a validated assessment of both PI and QOL [11,14,19,20,22,24,29,31,34,38,40,41,43,45,48,53,54,56,58,60,62,65,67,73,74,76,84,86,87,88,89,90]; in 33 (41%) and 3 (4%) of the studies, respectively, there was only a validated assessment of PI [8,10,13,17,21,23,25,26,28,30,33,35,36,42,44,47,49,50,52,59,61,63,69,71,77,78,80,81,82,83,85] or QOL [46,51,57]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In half of the studies, the categorization consisted of reporting the effect of CPIP on daily life using 9 different validated or nonvalidated criteria (table 3) [33,40,48,52,58,61,62,68,73,79,86]. The remaining studies used a categorization of pain severity based on VAS or numerical analog scale measurements [8,10,19,22,23,50,56,71,73,81,87,88,89]. The subsequent categorization of PI was highly heterogeneous (fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uniformity of Chronic Pain Assessment after Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Critical Review of the Literature

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) is the most common long-term complication of inguinal hernia repair. As such procedures are routinely performed, CPIP can be considered a significant burden to global health care. Therefore, adequate preventative measures relevant to surgical practice are investigated. However, as no gold standard research approach is currently available, study and outcome measures differ between studies. The current review aims to provide a qualitative analysis of the literature to seek out if outcomes of CPIP are valid and comparable, facilitating recommendations on the best approach to preventing CPIP. Methods: A systematic review of recent studies investigating CPIP was performed, comprising studies published in 2007-2015. Study designs were analyzed regarding the CPIP definitions applied, the use of validated instruments, the availability of a baseline score, and the existence of a minimal follow-up of 12 months. Results: Eighty eligible studies were included. In 48 studies, 22 different definitions of CPIP were identified, of which the definition provided by the International Association for the Study of Pain was applied most often. Of the studies included, 53 (66%) used 33 different validated instruments to quantify CPIP. There were 32 studies (40%) that assessed both pain intensity (PI) and quality of life (QOL) with validated tools, 41% and 4% had a validated assessment of only PI or QOL, respectively, and 15% lacked a validated assessment. The visual analog scale and the Short Form 36 (SF36) were most commonly used for measuring PI (73%) and QOL (19%). Assessment of CPIP was unclear in 15% of the studies included. A baseline score was assessed in 45% of the studies, and 75% had a follow-up of at least 12 months. Conclusion: The current literature addressing CPIP after inguinal hernia repair has a variable degree of quality and lacks uniformity in outcome measures. Proper comparison of the study results to provide conclusive recommendations for preventive measures against CPIP therefore remains difficult. These findings reaffirm the need for a uniform and validated assessment with uniform reporting of outcomes to improve the burden that CPIP poses to a significant surgical patient population.

show abstract

Randomized clinical trial of self-gripping mesh versus sutured mesh for Lichtenstein hernia repair

Abstract: NCT00815698 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Cited by 59 publications

References 24 publications

Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients

Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients

Randomized comparison of the feasibility of three anesthetic techniques for day-case open inguinal hernia repair

Uniformity of Chronic Pain Assessment after Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Critical Review of the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About