P112 INCIDENTAL INGUINAL HERNIA IN MEN
Rattachement africain : nl. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Aim “Ultrasound may contribute to establish the cause of nonspecific groin complaints. However, the risk is diagnosing an incidental inguinal hernia whereas the pain has an alternative cause. Overtreatment is to be prevented. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of a previously unknown inguinal hernia among working-age men without groin complaints.” Material and Methods “A cross sectional study was conducted in healthy men aged 45-67 years. Men with a Body Mass Index (BMI) > 40, a history of groin complaints, a known inguinal hernia or previous inguinal surgery were excluded. Ultrasound of both groins was performed in supine position with and without a Valsalva manoeuvre by a specialised ultrasound technician in consultation with a radiologist. In all groin ultrasounds showing an inguinal hernia, physical examination was executed by a hernia surgeon.” Results “In the months June and November of 2018, 200 groins of 100 men were analysed. In 16 (16%) men an inguinal hernia was found on groin ultrasound (95% confidence interval [8.8 – 23.2]). In 12 men this was a unilateral inguinal hernia and in 4 men a bilateral inguinal hernia. Ultrasound yielded no other pathology.” Conclusions “In a population of men aged 40-67 years without groin complaints, ultrasound detects an inguinal hernia in 16%. Hence, the probability of wrongly attributing groin complaints to an incidental inguinal hernia, diagnosed on ultrasound, is considerable. ”
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- P112 INCIDENTAL INGUINAL HERNIA IN MEN
- Date Crossref
- 01/11/2021
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.