Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein's operation versus mesh plug repair for inguinal hernia

作者: Raoul A. Droeser , Salome Dell-Kuster , Anita Kurmann , Rachel Rosenthal , Markus Zuber

DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000297

关键词: Multicenter trialProspective cohort studyHerniaConfidence intervalInguinal herniaSurgeryRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointMedicineSurgical mesh

摘要: Objective To compare long-term results of Lichtenstein's operation versus mesh plug repair for open inguinal hernia repair. Background The technique best choice in prosthetic remains a subject ongoing debate. Methods In this prospective, randomized controlled multicenter trial, patients with primary or recurrent hernias were to undergo either endpoint was the recurrence rate. Secondary endpoints included chronic pain, sensibility disorders, and reoperation Results total, 697 594 (297 per group). At median follow-up 6.5 years, 528 (76%) operated 444 (75%) clinically evaluated. rate similar both groups [mesh plug: 21/268 = 7.8%; Lichtenstein: 21/260 8.1%; adjusted odds ratio (OR): 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51, 1.68; P 0.795]. We did not find significant difference pain (Visual Analog Scale score >3) (OR: 0.58; CI: 0.31, 1.09; 0.088) sensory testing (17% vs 20% patients; OR: 0.53; 0.21, 1.37; 0.190) between 2 groups. There less reoperations than group 0.43; 0.22, 0.85; 0.016). Conclusions trial indicate enough evidence differences recurrence, disorders but lower likelihood Estimates all statistically based on large CIs. Clinical trials registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01637818.

参考文章(32)
Pandanaboyana Sanjay, David G. Watt, Simon A. Ogston, Afshin Alijani, John A. Windsor, Meta-analysis of Prolene Hernia System mesh versus Lichtenstein mesh in open inguinal hernia repair Surgeon-journal of The Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland. ,vol. 10, pp. 283- 289 ,(2012) , 10.1016/J.SURGE.2012.06.001
P. Nordin, P. Bartelmess, C. Jansson, C. Svensson, G. Edlund, Randomized trial of Lichtenstein versus Shouldice hernia repair in general surgical practice. British Journal of Surgery. ,vol. 89, pp. 45- 49 ,(2002) , 10.1046/J.0007-1323.2001.01960.X
Arne S. Eklund, Agneta K. Montgomery, Ib C. Rasmussen, Rune P. Sandbue, Leif Å. Bergkvist, Claes R. Rudberg, Low recurrence rate after laparoscopic (TEP) and open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair: a randomized, multicenter trial with 5-year follow-up. Annals of Surgery. ,vol. 250, pp. 33- 38 ,(2009) , 10.1097/SLA.0B013E31819255D0
Wolfgang Matthias Johann Reinpold, Jennifer Nehls, Albrecht Eggert, Nerve management and chronic pain after open inguinal hernia repair: a prospective two phase study. Annals of Surgery. ,vol. 254, pp. 163- 168 ,(2011) , 10.1097/SLA.0B013E31821D4A2D
F. Berrevoet, A. Vanlander, J. Bontinck, R. I. Troisi, Open preperitoneal mesh repair of inguinal hernias using a mesh with nitinol memory frame Hernia. ,vol. 17, pp. 365- 371 ,(2013) , 10.1007/S10029-013-1110-Y
Charles C. Edwards, Robert W. Bailey, Laparoscopic Hernia Repair: The Learning Curve Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques. ,vol. 10, pp. 149- 153 ,(2000) , 10.1097/00019509-200006000-00010
Elma A. OʼReilly, John P. Burke, P. Ronan OʼConnell, A meta-analysis of surgical morbidity and recurrence after laparoscopic and open repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Annals of Surgery. ,vol. 255, pp. 846- 853 ,(2012) , 10.1097/SLA.0B013E31824E96CF