Laparoscopic Intraluminal Surgery for Gastrointestinal Malignancies

Franklin, Morris E.; Portillo, Guillermo; Treviño, Jorge M.; González, John J.; Glass, Jeffrey L.

doi:10.1007/s00268-008-9607-8

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies have mentioned that different mesh materials might lower the infection rates, especially in the setting of concomitant bowel resection. Some case reports have revealed the safety of biological mesh in a contaminated field, but the evidence supporting the use of biological mesh was still limited [25, 26]. In a retrospective study including 761 patients undergoing ventral hernia repair in a contaminated field with mesh, SSIs were not significantly different between the biological mesh, synthetic mesh, and anatomic repair groups [27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness and Safety of Mesh Repair for Incarcerated or Strangulated Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Hernia repair with mesh in patients with incarcerated or strangulated hernias is controversial. Moreover, the use of mesh for hernia repair with concomitant bowel resection poses a great dilemma. This study compared the outcomes of mesh and anatomic repairs in patients with acutely incarcerated or strangulated hernias. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published before November 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies were included. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. The treatment outcome was measured by the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI), seroma formation, and hernia recurrence postoperatively. Results Two RCTs and six prospective studies with 978 patients were included. No significant difference in SSI incidence was observed between patients with incarcerated hernia from the mesh and anatomic repair groups. Recurrence was significantly lower in mesh repair group than in anatomic repair group (odds ratio, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.45). Only two patients needed to have mesh explantation due to mesh infection. In the setting of hernia repair with concomitant bowel resection, the SSI rate with mesh repair was slightly higher, but most cases of infections were well controlled with conservative antibiotic therapy. Conclusions Mesh repair for incarcerated or strangulated hernias was feasible with a great benefit of lower recurrence rates. However, due to limited data, drawing conclusions regarding the use of mesh for hernia repair with concomitant bowel resection was difficult. Further studies with preset criteria for evaluating patients undergoing concomitant bowel resection may help elucidate this issue.Yu-Te Lin and Tzu-Yu Weng contributed equally to this study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness and Safety of Mesh Repair for Incarcerated or Strangulated Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inspired by the technique of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) as well as laparoscopically monitored endoscopic polypectomy or intraluminal surgery for gastrointestinal lesions [11][12][13], we attempted to abolish the specimen-retrieval incision in laparoscopic colectomy by incorporating a ''natural orifice'' technique simultaneously using the TEO device. With this technique, the anus is the natural orifice employed, both for specimen extraction and anvil delivery and creation of the transanal stapled anastomosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%