PERINEAL HERNIA REPAIR: MULTICENTRE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SYNTHETIC MESH VERSUS MESH COMBINED WITH TISSUE FLAP
Rattachement africain : nl. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Aim Surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair have evolved over time. Presently, synthetic mesh repair is the preferred technique, but recurrence rates are high. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of adding a tissue flap to the mesh with mesh-only repair. Method Between 2006 and 2022, patients who underwent perineal hernia repair with synthetic mesh or mesh combined with tissue flap were retrospectively identified from three referral centres. Primary endpoint was recurrent perineal hernia. Results Seventy-nine patients were included, of which 65 patients underwent mesh-only repair and 14 patients mesh with flap repair. Postoperative perineal wound complications occurred in 23% in the mesh-only group and in 21% in the mesh with flap group. Meshes were solely explanted within the mesh-only group (n = 3). There were no flap failures in the mesh with flap group. During a median follow-up of 54 months, recurrent perineal hernia occured in 27/65 (42%) after mesh-only and in 2/14 (14%) after mesh with flap repair (p = 0.06). Time to recurrent hernia was median 14 months. Failed mesh only repair was successfully treated by crossover to mesh with flap in 4/4 patients. Conclusion Mesh combined with tissue flap repair of a perineal hernia seems more effective than synthetic mesh-only repair. These findings have to be confirmed in larger series.
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
- PERINEAL HERNIA REPAIR: MULTICENTRE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SYNTHETIC MESH VERSUS MESH COMBINED WITH TISSUE FLAP
- Date Crossref
- 01/05/2024
- 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.