Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Repair With Mesh for the Treatment of Ventral Incisional Hernia

Itani, Kamal M.F.

doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.18

Cited by 247 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…. 26,28,29 In lap group, out of 20 patients, 2 patients (10%) had developed wound infection. Post-operative seroma occurred in 6 patients (30%) treated with open mesh repair.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative study in clinical response in open versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…. 26,28,29 In lap group, out of 20 patients, 2 patients (10%) had developed wound infection. Post-operative seroma occurred in 6 patients (30%) treated with open mesh repair.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Itani KM et al showed laparoscopic group had shorter postoperative duration for return to normal work (28.5 days) as compared to those who had open mesh repair (23.0 days). 26 But Rosen MJ et al showed that there is no significant difference in return to regular work. .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study in clinical response in open versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The postoperative infection rate in open inguinal hernia mesh repair has been reported as high as 9% (Yerdel et al, 2001), whereas laparoscopic ventral hernia mesh repair has a postoperative mesh infection rate of 0.7-2%, and open ventral hernia mesh repair has an infection rate as high as 7-18% (Ríos et al, 2001;Itani et al, 2010). Mesh infection is a great challenge for surgeons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrospective analysis of surgical treatment of mesh infection after repair of ventral hernia or defect

Fd¹,

Jy²,

Yao³

et al. 2015

Genet. Mol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An example is the study by Itani et al [19] on ventral hernia repair comparing laparoscopic with conventional surgery. The infection rate was so much higher in the conventional group that the data safety monitoring board insisted the trial be stopped.…”

Section: Interim Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for reporting outcome results in abdominal wall repair

Muysoms

Deerenberg

Peeters

et al. 2013

Hernia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The literature dealing with abdominal wall surgery is often flawed due to lack of adherence to accepted reporting standards and statistical methodology. Materials and methods The EuraHS Working Group (European Registry of Abdominal Wall Hernias) organised a consensus meeting of surgical experts and researchers with an interest in abdominal wall surgery, including a statistician, the editors of the journal Hernia and scientists experienced in meta-analysis. Detailed discussions took place to identify the basic ground rules necessary to improve the quality of research reports related to abdominal wall reconstruction. Hernia (2013) 17:423-433 DOI 10.1007/s10029-013-1108 Results A list of recommendations was formulated including more general issues on the scientific methodology and statistical approach. Standards and statements are available, each depending on the type of study that is being reported: the CONSORT statement for the Randomised Controlled Trials, the TREND statement for non randomised interventional studies, the STROBE statement for observational studies, the STARLITE statement for literature searches, the MOOSE statement for metaanalyses of observational studies and the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A number of recommendations were made, including the use of previously published standard definitions and classifications relating to hernia variables and treatment; the use of the validated Clavien-Dindo classification to report complications in hernia surgery; the use of ''time-to-event analysis'' to report data on ''freedom-of-recurrence'' rather than the use of recurrence rates, because it is more sensitive and accounts for the patients that are lost to follow-up compared with other reporting methods. Conclusion A set of recommendations for reporting outcome results of abdominal wall surgery was formulated as guidance for researchers. It is anticipated that the use of these recommendations will increase the quality and meaning of abdominal wall surgery research.

show abstract

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Repair With Mesh for the Treatment of Ventral Incisional Hernia

Abstract: Laparoscopic repair was associated with fewer, albeit more severe, complications and improved some patient-centered outcomes. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00240188.

Cited by 247 publications

References 30 publications

Comparative study in clinical response in open versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

Comparative study in clinical response in open versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

A retrospective analysis of surgical treatment of mesh infection after repair of ventral hernia or defect

Recommendations for reporting outcome results in abdominal wall repair

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About