Moreno GS, González AMA, Díaz LF, DeIta MA, Cardoso CM, Iruegas MV

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 27-30
PDF size: 48.49 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective:To compare the results of two types of inguinal repair, with tension and tension-free, in relation to the morbidity.
Setting:Second level health care hospital.
Design:Clinical, prospective, comparative study.
Statistical analysis:Central tendency measures.
Material and methods:We studied 56 patients subjected to inguinal repair in the period from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. Thirty-three Shouldice-type repairs were performed in 32 patients and 25 repairs with the “Prolene Hernia System” (PHS) in 24 patients.
Results:Forty-one indirect, fourteen direct, two pantaloon, and one femoral hernias were operated. Hospitalization time was less than 24 hs in 5 patients (9%), 24 hs in 35 patients (63%), 48 hs in 10 patients (18%), 72 hs in 3 patients (5%), and more than 72 hs in 3 patients (5%). A subjective pain scale was developed, obtaining a mean of 6±2 for the Shouldice group and of 3±2 in the PHS group. Regarding early complications, two patients (6%) operated with the Shouldice technique and one (4%) of the PHS group presented testicular edema; after 8 days, one hematoma and two seromas were present in the PHS group (12%). Regarding late complications, there was only one case of neuralgia in the Shouldice group. Follow-up was of at least one year for all patients, without recurrences in any of the two groups.
Conclusion:No differences existed in relation to morbidity between both groups, nor were there recurrences at one year follow-up. It is noteworthy that when using a subjective pain scale, this was lower in the PHS group, which result might be associated to a faster integration to activities.

REFERENCES

1. Rutkow IM. Historia selectiva de la cirugía de hernia inguinal a principios del siglo XIX. Clin Quir Norteam 1998; 78: 871-88.

2. González AMA, Moreno GS, Maya MZ, Romero MR. Polidioxanona vs. seda en herniorrafia inguinal con técnica de McVay. Rev Fac Med UNAM 2001; 44: 244-7.

3. Bendavid R. Expectations of hernia surgery (inguinal and femoral). The Shouldice papers. 1990: 387-414.

4. Bendavid R. The rational use of mesh in hernias. A perspective. Int Surg 1992; 77: 229-31.

5. Lichtenstein IL. Herniorrhaphy. A personal experience with 6,321 cases. Am J Surg 1987; 153: 553-9.

6. Amid PK. Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall surgery. Hernia 1997; 1: 15-21.

7. Campanelli GP, Cavagnoli R, Gabrielli F, Pietri P. Trabucco’s procedure and local anaesthesia in surgical treatment of inguinal and femoral hernia. Int Surg 1995; 80: 29-34.

8. Shulman AG, Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL. The safety of mesh repair for primary inguinal hernias: results of 3,019 operations from five diverse surgical sources. Am Surg 1992; 58: 255-7.

9. Brenner. Mesh materials in hernia repair. Expert Meeting on Hernia Surgery 1994: 178-9.

10. Wantz GE. Experience with the tension-free hernioplasty for primary inguinal hernia in men. J Am Coll Surg 1996; 183: 351-6.

11. Robbins AW, Rutkow IM. The mesh-plug hernioplasty. Hernia Surg 1993; 73: 501-12.

12. Gilbert AI. Inguinal hernia repair: biomaterials and sutureless repair. Persp Gen Surg 1991; 2: 113-29.

13. Moran RM, Brauns J, Petrie CR, Novak BP, Johnsrud JM. Moran repair for inguinal hernias. National Ambulatory Hernia Institute 1995: 420-32.

14. Bobyn JD, Wilson GJ, MacGregor DC, Pilliar RM, Weatherly GC. Effect of pore size on the peel strength of attachment of fibrous tissue to porous-surfaced implants. J Biochem Materials Res 1982; 16: 571-84.

15. Bendavid R. The Shouldice repair. Hernia, 4th edition by Nyhus and Condon. JB Lippincott Company. Philadelphia 1995: 217-27.

16. Bendavid R. Complicaciones en la cirugía de hernia inguinal. Clin Quir Norteam 1998; 78: 1027-40.