Endoscopic repair of primary versus recurrent male unilateral inguinal hernias: Are there differences in the outcome?
Introduction To date, there are no prospective randomized studies that compare the outcome of endoscopic repair of primary versus recurrent inguinal hernias. It is therefore now attempted to answer that key question on the basis of registry data. Patients and methods In total, 20,624 patients were e...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical endoscopy 2016-03, Vol.30 (3), p.1146-1155 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction
To date, there are no prospective randomized studies that compare the outcome of endoscopic repair of primary versus recurrent inguinal hernias. It is therefore now attempted to answer that key question on the basis of registry data.
Patients and methods
In total, 20,624 patients were enrolled between September 1, 2009, and April 31, 2013. Of these patients, 18,142 (88.0 %) had a primary and 2482 (12.0 %) had a recurrent endoscopic repair. Only patients with male unilateral inguinal hernia and with a 1-year follow-up were included. The dependent variables were intra- and postoperative complications, reoperations, recurrence, and chronic pain rates. The results of unadjusted analyses were verified via multivariable analyses.
Results
Unadjusted analysis did not reveal any significant differences in the intraoperative complications (1.28 vs 1.33 %;
p
= 0.849); however, there were significant differences in the postoperative complications (3.20 vs 4.03 %;
p
= 0.036), the reoperation rate due to complications (0.84 vs 1.33 %;
p
= 0.023), pain at rest (4.08 vs 6.16 %;
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 0930-2794 1432-2218 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00464-015-4318-3 |