scholarly journals Comparison between Laparoscopic and Open Repair of Umbilical and Paraumbilical Hernia: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 127-135
Author(s):  
Arti Mitra ◽  
Unmed Chandak ◽  
Shiv Kumar Sahu ◽  
Yuvraj Pawaskar ◽  
Akanksha Waldia
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Paraumbilical Hernia ◽  
Early Return ◽  
Open Mesh Repair ◽  
The Mean

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.

scholarly journals The risk factors of laparoscopic and open repair surgery of inguinal hernia in a tertiary care center

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 1174
Author(s):  
Ashish Goenka ◽  
Mahesh Ijjapawar
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Repair Group

Background: The purpose of the present study to investigate the incidence of inguinal hernia and risk factors of laparoscopic and open repair surgery.Methods: The present study contained 3 bilateral,17 right-sided and 7 left-sided hernia in the laparoscopic group and 2 bilateral, 19 right-sided and 6 left-sided hernia in open repair group. A total of 54 patients had an inguinal hernia, 27 underwent open repair and 27 underwent laparoscopic to open repair.Results: The age group of patients of open repair is 51-60 years, whereas 41-50 years in laparoscopic repair. The mean age was 47 years in open repair against 43 years in the laparoscopic repair.Conclusions: Among them, eight patients from open repair (1-COPD, 3-asthma,1-hypertension, 3-smoking) and five patients with the laparoscopic repair (2- COPD, 2-asthma, 1-hypertension) had one of the above-mentioned risk factors. 

scholarly journals Comparison of Laparoscopic VS Open Inguinal Hernioplasty in a Tertiary Care Hospital

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
Md Mahfuzul Momen ◽  
Ashok Kumar Sarker ◽  
Deb Prosad Paul ◽  
Debasis Das ◽  
Sonia Akhter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Laparoscopic Hernioplasty ◽  
The Mean

Background: Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures in Bangladesh. The option of surgical treatment remains controversial. Laparoscopic hernia repair has all the benefits of a tension free repair. We aimed to compare postoperative outcome and cost between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. Objective: This study was conducted with an objective to compare the effectiveness of each procedure and complications if any. Materials and Methods: Fifty cases of inguinal hernia admitted in the tertiary care center were selected by nonprobability (purposive) sampling method. All patients with uncomplicated hernia treated by open or laparoscopic method were included. The age/sex, incidence, mode of presentation, surgical treatment and postoperative complications were evaluated and compared with standard published literature. Results: Postoperative wound infection developed in three cases of open hernioplasty and one case in laparoscopic surgery. Hematoma and seroma at the operated site were found in one case of laparoscopic hernioplasty and in two cases of open hernioplasty. Orchitis was more prevalent in the laparoscopic hernioplasty patient with incidence among two cases as compared to one in open group. The mean duration of hospitalization was 59.62±6.11 hours in case of laparoscopic hernioplasty while 53.33±8.26 hours in open hernioplasty. The mean duration of procedure was 72.33 minutes in laparoscopic group while 64.62 minutes in open surgery. The mean cost for the laparoscopic repair group was around taka 63000/= whereas in the open group it was around 42000/= only with significant difference. Prolonged groin pain was seen in four cases in open group as compared to one in laparoscopically operated cases. Conclusion: There were less post-operative complications in the laparoscopic group. J Enam Med Col 2020; 10(1): 17-22

scholarly journals Laparoscopic Repair of Inguinal Hernia : Early Experience in A Tertiary Care Hospital

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-22
Author(s):  
Sharmistha Roy ◽  
Samiron Kumar Mondal ◽  
Tapas Kumar Maitra
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Normal Activity ◽  
Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia

Background : The introduction of laparoscopic techniques has added a new dimension to groin hernia surgery. The laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia has had a staggering beginning in the surgical arena. Laparoscopic repairs have had to compete with the current gold standard for inguinal hernia repair ie Liechtenstein repair. This study shows the results of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in comparison to open repair in a similar group of patients.Methods and materials : This is a prospective study done on 50 male patient of inguinal hernia aging from 18- 65years. Among 50 patients selected for study 25 patient underwent open hernioplasty and 25 patient underwent laparoscopic hernioplasty. In the laparoscopic group, in 20 patients (80%) TAPP procedure was done & in 5 patients (20%) TEP procedure was done.Aims and Objective : The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic and conventional open repair, in the treatment of inguinal hernia.Results : Average operating time in open procedure was 55±12 minutes, and in laparoscopic procedure 65±10 minutes. Opoid analgesics were required in 36% patient in open group and 16% in laparoscopy group. Within 7 days most of the patient (76%) in laparoscopic group returned to their normal activity, but in the open group 92% patient required more than 7 days to return to normal activity. Post operative complication like hematoma formation (8%), Testicular pain (8%), retention of urine (3%), and mesh infection (4%) was more in open repair than in laparoscopic repair. In Laparoscopic group 1patient (5%) had bladder injury, and 1 patient (5%) developed illeus.Conclusion : Early results of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair are encouraging, but the chance of organ injury like bladder, or major vessel injury are more. So laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia should only be practiced with adequate training and experience in laparoscopic surgery.Bangladesh Crit Care J March 2016; 4 (1): 19-22

scholarly journals Management of perforated peptic ulcer in a district general hospital

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (8) ◽  
pp. 615-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
AC Critchley ◽  
AW Phillips ◽  
SM Bawa ◽  
PV Gallagher
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
General Hospital ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
District General Hospital ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Peptic Ulcers

INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular for elective surgery but it has gained slow transference to emergency surgery. The management of perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) laparoscopically is an accepted strategy yet it still remains infrequently used. The purpose of this study was to analyse the utility and outcomes of laparoscopy versus open repair for PPU in a district general hospital. In addition, we evaluated whether the subspecialty of the on-call consultant affected the method of repair performed and the training opportunities for trainee surgeons. METHODS Between 2003 and 2009, 53 patients underwent laparoscopic repair, 89 patients underwent open repair and a further 20 patients had laparoscopic repair that was converted to open repair for PPU. The results from a prospectively compiled database were analysed with primary outcome measures including operative time, length of hospital stay and mortality. RESULTS The median operating time in the laparoscopic group was 60.0 minutes compared with 50.5 minutes in the open group. Hospital stay in surviving patients was significantly shorter in patients treated completely laparoscopically (5 days) when compared with the open group (6 days) (p<0.01). There were six deaths in the laparoscopic group (11%) compared with 13 in the open group (15%) and one in the converted group (5%). Trainees performed 53% (47/89) of open repairs and 13% (7/54) of laparoscopic repairs. CONCLUSIONS Both laparoscopic and open repair are equally safe in the management of PPU. Our findings support the view that this procedure can be successfully used as a training operation.

scholarly journals Initial Experience Of Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair

1970 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-45
Author(s):  
SK Biswas ◽  
MM Arefin ◽  
JC Saha ◽  
T Ahmed ◽  
MM Rahman
Keyword(s):  
Incisional Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Incisional Hernia Repair ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair ◽  
Open Mesh Repair ◽  
The Mean ◽  
A Prospective Study

The laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is a safe alternative to open mesh repair. The procedure has the advantages of minimal access surgery and lower recurrence rate. A prospective study of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair of our first 11 patients was performed from July 2008 to December 2009. No serious intraoperative or postoperative morbidity was encountered, only two patients developed seroma. The mean operating time was 90 minutes (60 to 180 minutes). The mean day of discharge after surgery was 3 days (2-7 days). No patient developed a recurrence during mean follow up period of 10 months. Laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia has been shown to be feasible, safe and effective. However, careful patient selection and acquiring the necessary advanced laparoscopic surgical skills coupled with the proper use of equipment are mandatory before embarking on this procedure.Key Words: Incisional hernia; Laparoscopic repair; Mesh; Polypropylene DOI: 10.3329/fmcj.v5i2.6819Faridpur Med. Coll. J. 2010;5(2):41-45

scholarly journals Short-term Outcomes of Elective 2-Stage Restorative Proctocolectomy for Ulcerative Colitis in Korea: Does Laparoscopy Have Benefits?

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Woo Bong ◽  
Yong Sik Yoon ◽  
Jong Lyul Lee ◽  
Chan Wook Kim ◽  
In Ja Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Restorative Proctocolectomy ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Bowel Function ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Open Approach ◽  
Short Term

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of the open and laparoscopic approaches to 2-stage restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) for Korean patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 73 patients with UC who underwent elective RPC between 2009 and 2016. Patient characteristics, operative details, and postoperative complications within 30 days were compared between the open and laparoscopic groups.Results: There were 26 cases (36%) in the laparoscopic group, which had a lower mean body mass index (P = 0.025), faster mean time to recovery of bowel function (P = 0.004), less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.004), and less pain on the first and seventh postoperative days (P = 0.029 and P = 0.027, respectively) compared to open group. There were no deaths, and the overall complication rate was 43.8%. There was no between-group difference in the overall complication rate; however, postoperative ileus was more frequent in the open group (27.7% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.043). Current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 44.4; P = 0.003) and open surgery (OR, 5.4; P = 0.014) were the independent risk factors for postoperative complications after RPC.Conclusion: Laparoscopic RPC was associated with acceptable morbidity and faster recovery than the open approach. The laparoscopic approach is a feasible and safe option for surgical treatment for UC in selective cases.

scholarly journals A retrospective study on laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 1144
Author(s):  
P. Senthil Kumar ◽  
S. Edwin Kin’s Raj ◽  
Saranya Nagalingam
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Daily Activities ◽  
Early Return

Background: Appendectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in emergency surgery. Open appendectomy is the “gold standard” for the treatment of acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy though widely practiced has not gained universal approval. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a retrospective study.Methods: The study was done as a retrospective study among 387 patients diagnosed with appendicitis for a period of 18 months in the Dept of General Surgery. All patients included were 16 years and above and followed up for 3 weeks. In this study, 130 patients diagnosed as acute appendicitis - underwent open appendectomy and 257 patients diagnosed as sub-acute cases of appendicitis - underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. These two groups (open & laparoscopic) were compared for operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rate, early return to normal activity.Results: Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter hospital stay (around 4.5 days), with a less need for analgesia and with an early return to daily activities (around 11.5 days). Operative time was significantly shorter in the open group (35 mins), when compared with laparoscopic group (around 59 mins). Total number of complications was less in the Laparoscopic group with a significantly lower incidence of post-op pain and complications.Conclusions: The laparoscopic approach is a safe and efficient operative procedure and it provides clinically beneficial advantages over open appendectomy (including shorter hospital stay, an early return to daily activities and less post-op complications).

scholarly journals Laparoscopic hernioplasty of large ventral hernia with transfascial sutures: short term utility and outcome

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 52
Author(s):  
A Kumar ◽  
CS Agrawal ◽  
S Sah ◽  
RK Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Ventral Hernia ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Ventral Hernia Repair ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Mesh Fixation ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Large Ventral Hernia

Introduction: The laparoscopic approach to repairing ventral and incisional hernias has gained increasing popularity worldwide. The approximation of the hernia defect during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, prior to mesh fixation, provides a more physiologic and anatomic repair. Defect closure also provides more defect overlap with mesh placement and, possibly decreases recurrence rates. We reviewed the experience of laparoscopic repair of large ventral hernia (diameter ≥5cm) at a university hospital in the Nepal with particular reference to patients with massive defects (diameter ≥15cm) and transfascial closure.Methods: A total of 32 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral (incisional or umbilical/paraumbilical) hernia repair between July 2014 and September 2015.Results: The prevalence of conversion to open surgery was 3.1%. The prevalence of postoperative complications was 15.6%. Median postoperative follow-up was 8.2 months. A total of 9.4% cases suffered late complications and 3.1% developed recurrence. Twelve patients underwent repair of defects ≥10cm in diameter with no recurrence. Three patients underwent repair of ‘massive’ incisional hernia (diameter ≥15cm) with a prevalence of recurrence of 3.1%. Ten patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30kg/m2 (range, 32–35kg/m2) underwent laparoscopic repair without any recurrence.Conclusions: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with transfascial suturing can be carried out safely with a low prevalence of recurrence. It may have advantages in obese patients in whom open repair would represent a significant undertaking. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair may be used in cases of large and massive hernias, in which the risk of recurrence increases but is comparable with open repair and associated with low morbidity.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 2022
Author(s):  
Ahmed Abdel Monem Ibrahim ◽  
Backeet Turkeyev ◽  
Mohammad Mahmood Al Alkatary
Keyword(s):  
Peptic Ulcer ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Perforated Peptic Ulcer ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Open Approach

Background: The study included patients diagnosed as perforated peptic ulcer. Outcomes are assessed by mortality and morbidity rate, operation time and hospital length of stay.Methods: On the period from January 2013 to December 2014 a total of 71 patients were operated in both facilities: 37 patients in Dubai hospital and 34 in Mafraq Hospital. Open repair with omental patch done in 34 patients (47.9%) and laparoscopically in 37 patients (52.1%). No cases of laparoscopy converted to laparotomy.Results: The data demonstrates homogeneous results for the outcome variables of morbidity and complications, while operation time and hospital length of stay differ significantly. Statistical significance could not be reached for any of these variables, although odd ratios were consistently in favour of the laparoscopic repair. Similarly, the laparoscopic approach resulted in a lower rate of minor complications (10% vs. 23%). Total lengths of stay post open repair made of 4.2±1.2 days, after laparoscopic repair 3.6±0.9 days. At the same time there were observed longer operating times for laparoscopic repair of PPU which constituted 62±10.6 minutes whereas open repair took only 45±12.9 minutes. Peritoneal lavage has been a factor of prolonged duration of laparoscopic surgery.Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair of a perforated peptic ulcer is an amenable and feasible technique within the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeon. Current evidence does not clearly demonstrate the advantages of laparoscopic versus open repair. Growing interest in the laparoscopic approach may encourage the design of additional randomized trials to analyze its efficacy compared with the open approach.

scholarly journals Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Emergency Surgery for Colorectal Perforation: A Retrospective Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kensuke Kudou ◽  
Tetsuya Kusumoto ◽  
Sho Nambara ◽  
Yasuo Tsuda ◽  
Eiji Kusumoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Emergency Setting ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Colorectal Perforation

Abstract Background This study aimed to clarify the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation by comparing the clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and open emergency surgery for colorectal perforation. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the data of 100 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal perforation. The patients were categorized into two groups: the open group included patients who underwent laparotomy, and the laparoscopic group included those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Clinical and operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Results The open and laparoscopic groups included 58 and 42 patients, respectively. More than half of the patients in both groups developed perforation in the sigmoid colon (open, 55.2%; laparoscopic, 59.5%). The most common cause of perforation was diverticulum, followed by colorectal cancer. The mean intraoperative blood loss tended to be lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (78.8 mL versus 160.1 mL; P=0.0756). Hospital stay tended to be shorter in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (42.5 versus 55.7 days; P=0.0965). There were no significant differences in either the short- or long-term outcomes between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that the choice of surgical approach (open versus laparoscopic) did not affect overall survival in patients with colorectal perforation. Conclusions The laparoscopic approach for colorectal perforation in an emergency setting is a safe procedure compared with the open approach. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a decrease in intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document