Open versus laparoscopic repair of traumatic diaphragmatic injury: A nationwide propensity-matched analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 268 ◽  
pp. 452-458
Author(s):  
Omar Obaid ◽  
Ahmad Hammad ◽  
Letitia Bible ◽  
Michael Ditillo ◽  
Lourdes Castanon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Diaphragmatic Injury ◽  
Open Versus

Open Versus Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter O. Coe ◽  
Matthew J. Lee ◽  
Hannah Boyd-Carson ◽  
Sonia Lockwood ◽  
Arin Saha
Keyword(s):  
Peptic Ulcer ◽  
Peptic Ulcer Disease ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Perforated Peptic Ulcer ◽  
Ulcer Disease ◽  
Open Versus

Minimally invasive repair of right-sided blunt traumatic diaphragmatic injury

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. e235870
Author(s):  
Keiko Shichiri ◽  
Kiyotaka Imamura ◽  
Minoru Takada ◽  
Yoshiyasu Anbo
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Diaphragmatic Injury ◽  
Minimally Invasive Approach ◽  
Rare Injury ◽  
Posterior Portion ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Thoracoscopic Approach ◽  
Acute Setting ◽  
Thoracic Approach

Right-sided blunt traumatic diaphragmatic injury (TDI) is a rare injury that is rarely repaired by the minimally invasive approach in the acute setting. Laparoscopic repair of right-sided TDI is challenging because the liver often obstructs access to the injury site. Herein, we report a case wherein acute right-sided blunt TDI was successfully repaired using a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach. A 30-year-old man presented with shortness of breath after falling on his back while jumping on a snowboard. CT revealed a right-sided TDI. As the patient was haemodynamically stable, laparoscopic repair was planned. Laparoscopy revealed a right-sided diaphragmatic rupture. As the posterior portion was covered by the liver and difficult to access, we added trocars in the chest cavity and closed the diaphragmatic defect with a thoracic approach. A combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach can repair right-sided diaphragmatic injury by a minimally invasive approach even in the acute setting.

scholarly journals Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 1004
Author(s):  
Santoshkumar N. Deshmukh ◽  
Hirav P. Parikh
Keyword(s):  
Duodenal Ulcer ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Perforated Duodenal Ulcer ◽  
Analgesic Requirement ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Open Versus ◽  
Laparoscopic Techniques

Background: Surgery is the mainstay of the treatment for perforated duodenal ulcer by closing the perforation with or without omental patch. There are no controversies in the surgical treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer but the best approach to surgery is still debatable. Advances in minimal access surgery has made it possible to close the perforated duodenal ulcer laparoscopically. The present study was conducted to compare the results of open and laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer in terms of operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and post-operative complications etc.Methods: The study was conducted in Dr. V. M. Government Medical College and Hospital located in Solapur (Maharashtra) from December 2008 to December 2010. It was a prospective comparative study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups alternately where group A and B were operated by conventional and laparoscopic techniques respectively and their outcomes were compared.Results: Most commonly affected age in this study was 51 to 60 years with male preponderance. Post-operative pain, analgesic requirement, wound infection, hospital stay, was significantly less in laparoscopic group as compared to open group (p<0.05).Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer is safe and feasible in properly selected patients and has superior results as compared to open surgery.

scholarly journals P030 OPEN VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC UMBILICAL AND EPIGASTRIC HERNIA REPAIR: NATIONWIDE DATA ON SHORT- AND LONG-TERM OUTCOMES

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Henriksen ◽  
Lars Nannestad Jorgensen ◽  
Hans Friis Andersen ◽  
Frederik Helgstrand
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Severe Condition ◽  
Term Operation ◽  
Open Versus

Abstract Aim The aim of the study was to evaluate the rates of 90-day readmission and reoperation for complication, together with rate of operation for recurrence after either open or laparoscopic mesh repair for primary umbilical or epigastric hernias with defect widths above 1 cm. Material and Methods A merge of data between the Danish Hernia Database and the National Patient Registry provided data from 2007-2018 on perioperative information, 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation for complication, and long-term operation for hernia recurrence Results A total of 6,855 patients were included, of whom 4,106 (59.9%) and 2,749 (40.1%) patients had an open or laparoscopic repair, respectively. There were significantly more patients readmitted with a superficial surgical site infection 2.5% (102/4,106) after open repair compared with laparoscopic repair (0.5% (15/2,749), P &lt; 0.001. The 90-day reoperation rate for complications was significantly higher for open repairs 5.0% (205/4,106) compared with laparoscopic repairs 2.7% (75/2,749), P &lt; 0.001. The incidence of a reoperation for a severe condition was significantly increased after laparoscopic repair 1.5% (41/2,749) compared with open repair 0.8% (34/4,106), P = 0.010. The 4-year cumulative incidence of operation for recurrence was 3.5% after open and 4.2% after laparoscopic repairs, P = 0.302. Conclusions Recurrence rates were comparable between open and laparoscopic repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias. Open repair was associated with a significantly higher rate of readmission and reoperation due to surgical site infection, whereas the rate of reoperation due to a severe complication was significantly higher after laparoscopic repair.

Cost-Effectiveness of Open Versus Laparoscopic Repair for Primary Inguinal Hernia

1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 472-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen D. Dirksen ◽  
André J. H. A. Ament ◽  
Eddy M. M. Adang ◽  
Geerard L. Beets ◽  
Peter M. N. Y. H. Go ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Primary Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Bassini Repair ◽  
Open Versus

AbstractA cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis was performed of Bassini versus laparoscopic repair for primary inguinal hernia. Incremental costs per 1 -year recurrence-free patient were calculated for the societal and hospital perspective. From the hospital perspective, the incremental CE ratio of laparoscopic repair is 5.348 guilders. From the societal perspective, laparoscopic repair is both less costly and more effective than Bassini repair. Results were sensitive to assumptions about recurrence rates, laparoscopic operating time, and return to work. Laparoscopic repair should replace Bassini repair in order to benefit society. From the hospital perspective, the decision to accept laparoscopic repair depends on the willingness to pay.

scholarly journals Inguinal Hernia Mesh Repair: The Factors to Consider When Deciding Between Open Versus Laparoscopic Repair

Cureus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sri Vallabh Reddy Gudigopuram ◽  
Ciri C Raguthu ◽  
Harini Gajjela ◽  
Iljena Kela ◽  
Chandra L Kakarala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Hernia Mesh ◽  
Open Versus ◽  
Hernia Mesh Repair

scholarly journals Potential Benefits of Laparoscopic Repair of Duodenal Atresia: Insights from a Retrospective Comparative Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (01) ◽  
pp. 033-038
Author(s):  
Martin Sidler ◽  
Florin Djendov ◽  
Joe I. Curry ◽  
Simon Blackburn ◽  
Stefano Giuliani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Duodenal Atresia ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Congenital Duodenal Obstruction ◽  
Postoperative Time ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Group 5 ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study ◽  
Open Versus

Abstract Introduction Congenital duodenal obstruction (CDO) repair can be performed open or laparoscopically. We aimed to determine the potential benefit of laparoscopic repair regarding tolerance of enteral feeding, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and complication rate. Materials and Methods In a single-center retrospective cohort study, we compared neonates with isolated CDO operated open versus laparoscopically from 2010 to 2019. No transanastomotic tubes were used, and anastomoses were created in a side-to-side fashion in all cases. An early feeding policy is applied for all cases operated at our institution. Statistical comparison was performed using the Mann–Whitney's test or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. Results Forty-one patients analyzed were similar regarding body weight, gestational age, and proportion of patients with trisomy 21. Median follow-up was 21 months. Four (20%) out of 20 laparoscopic procedures started laparoscopically were converted to open. Comparing the 21 open with the 16 laparoscopically completed patients, median anesthetic duration was shorter by 18% in the open versus laparoscopic completed group (218 vs. 179 minutes, respectively; p = 0.025). Median postoperative time to full enteral feeds was shorter by 4 days in the first group (7 vs. 11 days, respectively; p = 0.028). In accordance, the median duration of parenteral nutrition (PN) was less than half in the laparoscopic completed compared with the open group (5 vs. 11.5 days, respectively; p = 0.031). Postoperative opioids were required for only half the duration in the laparoscopically completed group compared with open (2 vs. 4 days, respectively; p = 0.026). Outcomes such as length of stay, the occurrence of strictures or adhesions requiring reintervention, or line sepsis were similar in both groups. Conclusion Patients undergoing laparoscopic CDO repair at our institution benefited from shorter time to full enteral feeds, and reduced the need for PN as well as postoperative pain medication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document