Comparative Study between Laparoscopic and Open Repair of Paraumbilical Hernia

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. H. Othman ◽  
Y. H. Metwally ◽  
I. S. Bakr
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 03-08
Author(s):  
Omar Atef Elekiabi ◽  
Mohamed E Eraky ◽  
Waleed A Abdelhady ◽  
Ahmed M Sallam ◽  
Loay M Gertallah

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-310
Author(s):  
Iris Chung ◽  
Billy HH Cheung ◽  
Tsz Ting Law ◽  
Ka Kin Ng ◽  
Lily Ng ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-288
Author(s):  
Dhruva G Prakash ◽  
◽  
Sharath V Kumar ◽  
Naveen N ◽  
◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Saleem Jahangir ◽  
Salameh Dajah ◽  
sivanandan ramar ◽  
Altaf Bhat ◽  
Seema Khan ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-228
Author(s):  
Khaled Elfekky ◽  
Mohamed Omar ◽  
Mohamed Hassan ◽  
Assem Abo Yousef

Author(s):  
Arti Mitra ◽  
Unmed Chandak ◽  
Shiv Kumar Sahu ◽  
Yuvraj Pawaskar ◽  
Akanksha Waldia

Background: Laparoscopic repair of umbilical and paraumbilical hernia has largely replaced conventional (Open) repair. The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic vs. open repair of umbilical & para umbilical hernia in a tertiary care government hospital. Methods: A total 50 patients of age >18 years diagnosed with umbilical and paraumbilical hernia who underwent laparoscopic and open hernia repair from May2018 to Nov 2020 were enrolled and divided into two groups of 25 patients in each. The patients were followed up in the post-operative period in the wards during daily rounds till the time of discharge; 1 and 6 months after discharge and yearly. Results: The mean age for open group was 44.24±7.68years while the mean age for laparoscopic group was 50.0±11.82years. Operative time was more in laparoscopic repair (81.68±18.37min) as compared to open (55.44±16.54min). Post-operative pain (VAS score) was greatest in the open group in comparison to lap group at 6 hr, 24 hr, day 8 and at 1month. Postoperative overall complication rate (Infection, seroma and recurrence) was 12% in the laparoscopic group and 28% in the open group. Recovery was faster with laparoscopic repair with a mean postoperative hospital stay of 3.28days as compared to 5.88days for open mesh repair. Patients treated with laparoscopic repair were early return to routine activity and work. Conclusion: The laparoscopic approach appears to be safe, effective and acceptable. It is a complex but very efficient method in experienced hands and it offered a significant advantage over open repair.


Author(s):  
Deepak Meena ◽  
Vinod Bhavi ◽  
Jas Karan Singh ◽  
Gurpreet Singh

Background: Comparative study of laparoscopic and open surgical method in management of peptic ulcer perforation Methods: The present study was conducted in patients presented with perforation peritonitis to the emergency department in G.G.S medical college and hospital, a tertiary care hospital in Faridkot, Punjab in which comparison of the clinical outcome between laparoscopic and open surgical methods for treatment of Gastro duodenal perforation was study. Results: Mean operative time of laparoscopic repair group was higher (158.2±0.64 min) in comparison to open repair group (70.8±0.42 min). In the present study post-operative pain score was assessed in each and every patient using Visual analogue scale. On post-operative day 1, mean VAS for OR Group was significantly higher in comparison to LR Group. Later on postoperative day 3, Majority of patients of in LR group had a highest score of 1-4 while in OR group was score 5-7.Nexton postoperative day 5, again mean VAS for LR patients was less in comparison to OR Group. Conclusion: As this is the first kind of study in our geographical area in which role of alcohol proved to be an important risk factor. Laparoscopic approach for repair of perforated peptic ulcer may offer significant advantage over open repair approach with lesser post-operative pain, lsser postoperative complications like wound infections, comparable reperforation rates and lesser duration of hospital stay. Keywords: Laparoscopic, Open, Repair


2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 105-113
Author(s):  
Oruganti Shankar ◽  
Awais Ghori ◽  
P. Niranjan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document