The technique provides both a promising surgical technique for the repair of focal defects of the medial femoral condyle and a sensitive model for the future study of cryopreservation strategies for articular cartilage.
The choice of the optimal surgical approach for repairing paraesophaeal hernias (PEH) is debated. Our objective is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of primary laparoscopic and open repairs of PEH performed in the Calgary Health Region. A retrospective review of all patients undergoing repair of PEH between October 1999 and February 2005 was performed. The outcome measures evaluated included intra-operative parameters and post-operative variables, mortality rates, recurrence rates and patient satisfaction. A total of 93 patients underwent either a laparoscopic (n = 46) or open (n = 47) primary PEH repair. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a longer mean operative time (3.1 +/- 1.2 hours vs. 2.5 +/- 0.7 hours, P = 0.005) but resulted in a shorter overall hospital stay (5 days [2-16 days]vs. 10 days [5-24 days]; P < 0.001), and fewer post-operative complications (10/46 [22%]vs. 25/47 [53%]P = 0.002). Although the follow-up was short (laparoscopic 16 months; open 18 months), a 9% recurrence rate was reported with both approaches. Patient satisfaction using the Gastroesophageal Disease Health-Related Quality Of Life questionnaire was similar in both groups (P = 0.861) with most patients reporting excellent outcomes (laparoscopic: 32/36 [89%]; open 27/35 [77%]). Our review suggests that the laparoscopic approach is safe with shorter hospital stay and recovery. Although early follow-up suggests that recurrence rates and patient satisfaction are similar, long-term follow-up is required to determine whether the laparoscopic approach will become the procedure of choice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.