Topic: Perineal Reconstruction

Suzuki, Takashi; Suwa, Katsuhito; Hanyu, Ken; Ushigome, Takuro; Okamoto, Tomoyoshi; Yanaga, Katsuhiko; Barzola, E.; García, Andrés del Pozo; Armas, N. De; Espín, MJ del Amor; Pérez, Martín; Jiménez, J; Salas, José Blanco

doi:10.1007/bf03355376

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Results1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2022

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The search resulted in 872 papers, which were all screened by title and abstract. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram is shown in Figure 1 [ 3 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. A total of 19 studies, describing 172 patients, were included in this review (Table 1 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mesh, flap or combined repair of perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection – A systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR) remains a vexing problem for both patients and clinicians. In the current literature the incidence of symptomatic perineal hernia ranges from 7% to 30% [1-3]. A perineal hernia may cause discomfort, pain, wound healing problems, urogenital dysfunction and small bowel obstruction [4][5][6]. Depending on the severity of symptoms, preference and experience of the surgeon, an elective repair is sometimes considered. In contrast to abdominal wall hernias, literature on perineal hernia repair is very limited.Recurrence rates after surgical repair of a perineal hernia are high, and no consensus has been reached regarding the preferred method. Many options have been described, including primary

show abstract