Transinguinal Preperitoneal Technique of Inguinal Hernioplasty – A Better Alternative to Lichtenstein Procedure

Ray, Radharaman; Kar, Manoranjan; Mukhopadhyay, Mrityunjay

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2014/7632.4320

Cited by 14 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…42,[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] One of the included trials 53 used a quasi-random method to allocate participants to interventions (i.e. order of admittance).…”

Section: Results Of the Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…61 One trial 51 did not blind participants or outcome assessors, and was considered at high risk of performance and detection biases. Six of the included trials, 54,55,57,58,60,63 failed to provide sufficient information to formulate a reliable judgement about risk of bias and no additional details were obtained from the corresponding authors.…”

Section: Clinical Effectiveness Of Open Mesh Repairsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…53 In the remaining trials, there was insufficient information on sequence generation and allocation to make a reliable judgement. 54,55,57,60,63 DOI: 10.3310/hta19920 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2015 VOL. 19 NO.…”

Section: Selection Bias (Adequate Sequence Generation/allocation Concmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…51,53,[56][57][58][59][60][61] Missing data were adequately addressed in four trials 53,56,58,59 and four other trials reported that there were no missing data. 51,57,60,61 One trial, conducted in Turkey, which did not address missing data adequately and had a 5% drop-out rate, was judged to be at high risk of attrition bias.…”

Section: Selection Bias (Adequate Sequence Generation/allocation Concmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation

Sharma

Boyers

Scott

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 13/134/01. The contractual start date was in September 2014. The draft report began editorial review in March 2015 and was accepted for publication in July 2015. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Published by the...

show abstract

“…42,[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] One of the included trials 53 used a quasi-random method to allocate participants to interventions (i.e. order of admittance).…”

Section: Results Of the Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clinical Effectiveness Of Open Mesh Repairsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Selection Bias (Adequate Sequence Generation/allocation Concmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Selection Bias (Adequate Sequence Generation/allocation Concmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation

Sharma

Boyers

Scott

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pre-peritoneal repair surgery has played a large role in the management of inguinal hernia with few complications and less postoperative chronic pain in recent years 3 . In this procedure, a mesh is placed in a deep position located between the peritoneum and the abdominal wall and secured over the musculoaponeurotic 4 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Swing mesh versus Modified Kugel mesh for primary inguinal hernia repair. A prospective randomized clinical trial

Zhou¹,

Zhang³

et al. 2016

Acta Cir. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new mesh in the pre-peritoneal repair of inguinal hernia. METHODS:We randomly divided 120 patients undergoing pre-peritoneal repair into 2 groups between March 2012 and December 2013. The patients were randomized to receive the Swing mesh (n=60; study group) or the Modified Kugel mesh (n=60; control group).The primary end point of this study was to compare postoperative groin pain of the two groups. Complications, recurrence and analgesic use were also recorded. RESULTS:There were no recurrent cases in either group throughout the study period. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to postoperative complications. The VAS of early postoperative pain was 1.32±1.69 in study group and 1.52±1.93 in control group, with the difference being not statistically significant (p = 0.547). Concerning chronic pain, no remarkable statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups at 3-month, 6-month, 12-and 18-month follow-up period. CONCLUSION:Swing mesh can be safely and effectively used in inguinal hernia repair with the same advantage compared to the Modified Kugel mesh.Key words: Hernia, Inguinal. Surgical Mesh. Swing mesh versus Modified Kugel mesh for primary inguinal hernia repair. A prospective randomized clinical trial

show abstract

Postoperative outcomes using Lichtenstein open hernioplasty versus Nyhus preperitoneal hernioplasty in inguinal hernia: A comparative analysis with 1‐year follow‐up

Vargas

Mendoza‐Zuchini

Pedraza

et al. 2023

Health Science Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Inguinal hernia is the most common defect of the abdominal wall in 75% and their treatment consists of surgical repair. The technique of choice is laparoscopic because of its overall benefits. However, when this is not available, open approaches may be a viable option. Currently, the most commonly used open techniques are Lichtenstein and Nyhus. However, there are few medium-or longterm studies that have compared outcomes between these two techniques.Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study that included patients undergoing open inguinal hernia correction with mesh, using Lichtenstein open hernioplasty versus Nyhus preperitoneal hernioplasty, in two tertiary referral centers in Bogota, Colombia, during a period of 2 years. A bivariate analysis was performed to compare groups, according to the complications presented between the two techniques.Results: A total of 193 patients were included, of whom 53.36% were men and 112 (58.03%) were approached with the Nyhus technique versus 81 patients with the Lichtenstein technique. Nonabsorbable suture fixation was performed in 100% of patients. Among the main complications, seroma (5.18%), pain (4.14%), bleeding (2.07%), recurrence (10.88%), and reoperation (0.51%) were observed, of which only recurrence showed a statistically significant difference, which is lower in the Nyhus approach (3.57% vs. 20.67%; p < 0.001). No patients died.Conclusions: Both Nyhus and Lichtenstein hernioplasty techniques were shown to cause a low incidence of postoperative complications, with significantly lower recurrence using the Nyhus technique up to 1 year postoperatively.

show abstract

Transinguinal Preperitoneal Technique of Inguinal Hernioplasty – A Better Alternative to Lichtenstein Procedure

Cited by 14 publications

References 6 publications

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation

Swing mesh versus Modified Kugel mesh for primary inguinal hernia repair. A prospective randomized clinical trial

Postoperative outcomes using Lichtenstein open hernioplasty versus Nyhus preperitoneal hernioplasty in inguinal hernia: A comparative analysis with 1‐year follow‐up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About