PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10450737

Laparoscopic mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized multicenter trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study).

B Johansson·B Hallerbäck·H Glise·B Anesten·S Smedberg·J Román
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of the laparoscopic technique in hernia repair regarding time to full recovery and return to work, complications, recurrence rate, and economic aspects. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies have shown advantages in terms of less pain and faster recovery after laparoscopic hernia repair, whereas others have not, and the cost-effectiveness has been questioned. The laparoscopic technique must be thoroughly compared with the open procedures before its true place in hernia surgery can be defined. METHODS: Six hundred thirteen male patients aged 40 to 75 years were randomized to the conventional procedure, preperitoneal mesh placed by the open technique, or laparoscopic preperitoneal mesh (TAPP). Follow-up was after 7 days, 8 weeks, and 1 year. RESULTS: Of 613 patients undergoing surgery, 604 (98.5%) were followed for 1 year. Patients who underwent TAPP gained full recovery after 18.4 days, compared with 24.2 days for open mesh (p < 0.001) and 26.4 days for the conventional procedure (p < 0.001). Patients who underwent TAPP returned to work after 14.7 days, compared with 17.7 days for open mesh (p = 0.05) and 17.9 days for the conventional procedure (p = 0.04). They also had significantly less restriction in physical activities after 7 days. The TAPP procedure was more expensive, mainly as a result of longer surgical time and equipment costs, even after compensation for earlier return to work. Complications were more common in the TAPP group, with a varying pattern between the groups. Four recurrences in the conventional, 11 in the open mesh, and 4 in the TAPP group were recorded after 1 year (p = n.s.). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic technique results in both shorter time to full recovery and shorter time to return to work, at the price of substantially increased costs.

Explore related subjects

Costs and Cost AnalysisHernia, InguinalHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedSurgical MeshClinical TrialJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Johansson, B Hallerbäck, H Glise, B Anesten, S Smedberg, J Román. 1999. Laparoscopic mesh versus open preperitoneal mesh versus conventional technique for inguinal hernia repair: a randomized multicenter trial (SCUR Hernia Repair Study).. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199908000-00013

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Predicting costs of mental health care: a critical literature review.

BACKGROUND: Cost evaluation research in the mental health field is being increasingly recognized as a way to achieve a more effective deployment of scarce resources. However, there is a paucity of studies that seek to identify predictors of psychiatric service utilization and costs. This paper aims to critically review the published research in the field of psychiatric service utilization and costs, and discusses current methodological developments in this field. METHOD: Sixteen studies were identified and are critically reviewed. RESULTS: No single variable alone can explain variations in costs between patients; instead, a range of different clinical and non-clinical variables provides a greater explanation of cost variations. Having a history of previous psychiatric service use is the most consistent predictor of higher psychiatric costs. Only one study considers indirect costs incurred by users, their families and friends and society as a whole, with the remaining 15 studies focusing on direct mental health care costs. There is a lack of studies that consider the future psychiatric service utilization and costs of care of children and older people. The cross-validation of predictive models is not yet routine, with only four of the studies including a cross-validation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive approach in mental health cost evaluation has relevance for both mental health policy and practice. However, there is a paucity of studies that focus on children, older people and indirect costs. Furthermore, there remain a number of methodological challenges to address.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗
PubMed2007

The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the cost and availability of a standard basket of healthy food items (the Healthy Food Access Basket [HFAB]) in Queensland over time. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A series of four cross-sectional surveys (in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004) describing the cost and availability of foods in the HFAB over time. In the latest survey, 97 Queensland food stores across the five Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness categories were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost comparisons for HFAB items by remoteness category for the 97 stores surveyed in 2004; changes in cost and availability of foods in the 81 stores surveyed since 2000; comparisons of food prices in the 56 stores surveyed in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004. RESULTS: In 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB was $395.28 a fortnight. The cost of the HFAB was 29.6% ($113.89) higher in "very remote" areas than in "major cities" (P < 0.001). Between 2001 and 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB increased by 14.0% ($48.45), while in very remote areas the cost increased by 18.0% ($76.93) (P < 0.001). Since 2000, the annualised per cent increase in cost of the HFAB has been higher than the increase in Consumer Price Index for food in Brisbane. The cost of healthy foods has risen more than the cost of some less nutritious foods, so that the latter are now relatively more affordable. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers, particularly those in very remote locations, need to pay substantially more for basic healthy foods than they did a few years ago. Higher prices are likely to be a barrier to good health among people of low socioeconomic status and other vulnerable groups. Interventions to make basic healthy food affordable and accessible to all would help reduce the high burden of chronic disease.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗