PubMed · 5497013
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Ficai, B Chiezzi, C Buffi. [Parainguinal hernia].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5497013/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
We present an extremely huge and longstanding, giant inguinoscrotal hernia extending to below the knee with an ulcer at its base. Though hernias of this magnitude are rare, their management can be demanding and challenging. Nevertheless, in an emergency situation, the repair of the hernial defect is not essential, especially in a compromised patient. In fact, the most important step is excision of the devitalised tissue, and the final surgery can be delayed. In nonemergency management, definitive surgery can be planned either by a period of preoperative staged pneumoperitoneum, repairing after a resection of bowel and omentum, or replacing the content and ventilation of the patient to avoid the pressure on the cardiorespiratory system by forcing the tissue. This case highlights the problems encountered in management of huge hernias.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Meta-analyses suggest that, with regard to relative risks of hernia recurrence, there is a net benefit in the use of synthetic mesh rather than the surgical approach. Considering important arguments raised by both conventional and laparoscopic surgeons, we set out to explore other sources of variability across individual studies. METHODS: We abstracted all publications of randomized trials of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair included in the EU Hernia Trialists meta-analyses. We applied meta-regression to identify variables that are likely to alter the relative risk of hernia recurrence with either route. RESULTS: We included 41 randomized trials (7,446 patients), two of which were identified by a systematic literature search. There was significant statistical heterogeneity across studies (chi(2) test P=0.029). Meta-regression was limited because of scarce information provided in the original papers, and small sample sizes. Results varied internationally, with trials from the UK, southern Europe and Australia favouring open hernioplasty (analysis of variance, P=0.0047). Large numbers of surgeons contributing to the open hernioplasty group predicted better results with endoscopic hernia repair [risk ratio (RR)] 0.99 with any additional surgeon, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.00, P=0.005]. Non-significant trends were observed towards reduced recurrence risks with increasing mesh sizes. Training procedures performed before patient enrollment slightly reduced the relative risk of recurrence with endoscopic hernioplasty. CONCLUSION: Because of the diversity in the size of effect, it is doubtful whether data from the available hernia trials should be compiled into a single summary measure. Efficacy estimates in hernia surgery are susceptible to technical issues, which need further scientific appraisal on a larger scale.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.