26.4.3 Mesh Fixation

Добавил:

Sekretar kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.

Вуз:

Ростовский Государственный Медицинский Университет

Предмет:

Медицина общая

Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_753_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf

Скачиваний:

Добавлен:

30.08.2026

Размер:

48 Мб

Скачать

☆

<<< < Предыдущая 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2627 / 5027 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 > Следующая >>>

260

E. Gianetta and C. Stabilini

26.4.3 Mesh Fixation

In 2002 [3] after evaluation of their experience, the authors identied ve features of the original technique responsible for suboptimal results and needing revision. These so-called aws were thought to produce two main complications of hernia repair, recurrence and chronic postoperative pain, and considered as insufcient application of the tension-free principles, namely:

1. The mesh was not extended beyond the pubic tubercle to overlap the pubic bone.

2. The mesh was too narrow (only 5cm) to provide enough mesh tissue contact above the inguinal oor.

3. The mesh was kept at and, therefore, was subject to tension when the patient stood up from the supine position of the operation.

4. The upper edge of the mesh was xed using a continuous suture, which potentially left the iliohypogastric nerve at risk.

5. Passing the genital nerve and external spermatic vessel through a gap along the suture line of the mesh with the inguinal ligament exposed the nerve to potential risk of entrapment.

the internal inguinal ring. After xation, it should be kept in a relaxing conguration, somewhat redundant to overcome the problem of polypropylene shrinkage possible, as known, as far as 25%. Using interrupted resorbable sutures and keeping the nerves together with all cord structures helped in reducing pain generated by suture entrapment.

The main principle of tension-free hernia repair relies on accurate mesh xation: no tension must be introduced in the sutures while tying the knots and on the mesh. According to the original technique, the mesh is xed with a running nonabsorbable suture (USP 2/0 polypropylene) to the inguinal ligament (Fig. 26.14) and with interrupted resorbable sutures (USP vicryl 2/0) on the aponeurotic layer of the transverse and internal oblique muscle (Fig.26.15).

Accordingly, modications were introduced to reduce the occurrence of adverse events and adopted in this nal form till now. The mesh is bigger to cover all the inguinal oor, with a 2cm overlap over the pubic tubercle and 5–6cm lateral to

Fig. 26.15 Interrupted absorbable stitches to x the mesh to the aponeurotic layer of the lateral muscles and nonab-

sorbable sutures to close the slit

Fig. 26.14 Running nonabsorbable suture to x the

mesh to the inguinal ligament

26 Lichtenstein Onlay Mesh Hernioplasty: Original Technique andPersonal Modications

Authors’ Comment

• We do advise not to tie excessively the knots on the muscles in order to reduce the possibility of postoperative pain and nerve entrapment.

• According to several new modications in the surgical technique aimed at reducing the total amount of implanted material, the xation of the mesh can be achieved also by:

Fibrin sealant: we have experienced

this material and appreciated the durable xation characteristics along with

Fig. 26.16 The external oblique aponeurosis is closed

above the cord with a continuous absorbable suture

its hemostatic power. The effect on pain, discomfort, and numbness and the reduction of postoperative bleeding in

26.4.4 Closure oftheSurgical Wound

high-risk patients have been shown in several trials. For these reasons, it has become one of our favorite xation techniques. When using brin sealant, we usually adopt two additional sutures, respectively, on the pubic tubercle and to solidarize the tail of the mesh, which represent the two weakest points of the hernioplasty.

Synthetic glue: we have very few

experiences of cyanoacrylate glue in Lichtenstein hernioplasty, and the application is very easy and, differently from brin sealant, made in the form of spots applied as common stitches. The results in the literature are good but not superior to traditional xation with resorbable materials.

Self-gripping mesh: in our experience,

this type of mesh needs a little learning curve for its correct deployment, but after few cases, it eases and speeds the

In the original, Lichtenstein advised the closure of the external oblique aponeurosis deep to the spermatic cord to offer some additive strength to the repair, but we do not adopt this technique nor the embrication described by Andrews; we simply close the aponeurosis over the cord not to introduce too much tension on the repair (Fig.26.16). We acknowledge, however, that in this way the cord lies unprotected in direct contact to the prosthetic material possibly exposed to foreign body reaction, but as far as we can be sure, no such event has ever been observed in our series.

We usually perform a reapproximation of the deep subcutaneous tissue solidarizing with EOA.In our experience, this can help in reducing the occurrence of seroma.

The cutaneous incision is closed with intracuticular sutures. When used, stitches are removed at the rst postoperative visit occurring 1week after surgery.

work of the surgeon. However, the current literature has still not found a clear advantage, except for reduced operative time, of this material when analyz-

26.4.5 Patient Discharge

andAftercare

ing the effects on chronic postoperative pain [13].

The patient is discharged in the early afternoon after checking the surgical wound and testicle for

261

262

E. Gianetta and C. Stabilini

local complications. In our practice, causes of unplanned prolongation of hospital stay are pain not manageable with common painkillers, urinary retention, and fever. Postoperative painkillers are prescribed the night of the intervention and then on patient’s request.

Lichtenstein stated that encouraging immediate postoperative ambulation “prevents muscle spasm that initiate the pain cycle,” so at our center all patients are instructed to resume their normal activity as soon as possible, to walk immediately after the procedure without restriction. We adopt a “do what you feel you can do” [4] attitude, and we only prescribe no heavyweight lifting for 3 weeks. Postoperative bindings are not prescribed.

The rst outpatient visit occurs 1week after surgery to assess the surgical wound, and then patients are followed at 6months and yearly up to the second postoperative year.

References

1. Lichtenstein IL. Hernia repair without disability: a

surgical atlas illustrating the anatomy, technique, and physiologic rationale of the “one day” hernia and introducing new concepts: tension-free herniorrhapies. Missouri: Ishiyaku EuroAmerica; 1986.

2. Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG, Amid PK, Montllor

MM. The tension-free hernioplasty. Am J Surg. 1989;157:188–93.

3. Amid P, The K.Lichtenstein repair in 2002: an overview of causes of recurrence after Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty. Hernia. 2003;7:13–6.

4. Simons MP, etal. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia. 2009;13:343–403.

5. Smietanski M, etal. Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia. 2014;18:151–63.

6. Gianetta E, et al. Anterior tension-free repair of recurrent inguinal hernia under local anesthesia a 7-year experience in a teaching hospital. Ann Surg. 2000;231:132–6.

7. Gianetta E, etal. Hernia repair in elderly patients. Br J Surg. 1997;84:983–5.

8. Al-dabbagh A.Anatomical variations of the inguinal nerves and risks of injury in 110 hernia repairs. Surg Radiol Anat. 2002;24:102–7.

9. Scott N, etal. Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.

CD002197.

10. Fang Z, etal. Biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and metaanalysis. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85:910–6.

11. Zhong C, etal. A meta-analysis comparing lightweight meshes with heavyweight meshes in Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Surg Innov. 2013;20:24–31.

12. Uzzaman M, etal. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing lightweight and heavyweight mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2012;16:505–18.

13. Ismail A, et al. Self-gripping versus sutured mesh xation methods for open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies. Surgery. 2017;162(1):18–36. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.12.028.

Mesh Plug Repair

FrancescoGossetti, LindaD’Amore, MariaRomanaGrimaldi, FrancescaCeci, andPaoloNegro

To Davide Fieschi (1869–1953), the pioneer of open plug repair [1].

27.1 Introduction

Besides the onlay prosthetic herniorrhaphy, of which the Lichtenstein technique represents the gold standard, mesh plug is one of the most common procedures for open tension-free groin hernia repair. The mesh plug repair (MPR) has been proposed in the late 1980s on the basis of the experience of Gilbert, Trabucco, and Rutkow [2–4], but it was only when a preformed plug (PerFix™, Bard Davol) began to be available on the market that this technique became widespread [5]. Since then, millions of plugs have been used worldwide, and many other new devices have been developed and continue to be produced by the medical industry, designed for those surgeons who prefer a three-dimensional (3D) technique for groin hernia repair.

MPR is actually a deep repair, as the device lies in the pre-peritoneal space. It requires a less complete dissection ensuring a tension-free hernioplasty. The plug prevents protrusion of the previously inverted peritoneal sac, so acting as a stopper [6]. Filling the pre-peritoneal space, the 3D conguration of the plug also provides a deeper area over which scarication takes place.

F. Gossetti (*) · L. D’Amore · M. R. Grimaldi F. Ceci · P. Negro Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy e-mail: gossetti@tiscalinet.it; linda.damore@uniroma1.it

In this way, the plug prevents the recurrence of lateral hernias following previous onlay repair, in which a peritoneal sac can be found protruding through the inguinal internal ring, between the posterior wall and the onlay patch [7].

Originally, mesh plug repair was proposed for all groin hernias, on the basis of the hernia classication described by Rutkow [4]. Today, MPR should be indicated for the treatment of lateral hernia, recurrent “internal” hernia, and femoral hernia, according to a tailored management of groin hernia.

27.2 Surgical Technique

The operation is performed under local anesthesia or sensory epidural block, as it allows the patient to cough or strain on command. In this way, it is possible to verify the correct positioning of the plug and to ascertain that the hernia sac remains safely reduced. The skin incision is less than 6 cm, and external oblique aponeurosis is slit from the external ring to just above its location over the internal ring. Tissue dissection, including that of the hernia sac, is minimal, and it is accomplished with electrocautery. The cremasteric muscle is removed to allow a proper placement of the mesh. The inguinal and genitofemoral nerves are preserved, if surgical steps allow it.

In lateral hernias, the sac is dissected off the spermatic cord structures to the level of the

263

264

F. Gossetti et al.

internal ring, along with any lipomas of the cord. The dissection of the sac should be high enough to visualize the pre-peritoneal fat pad at the level of the internal ring, in order to create a pocket for positioning the plug. The internal ring is the natural passage for the cord, so the space should be considered not virtual but real [8]. The hernia sac is opened only if strictly necessary. Once the freely dissected sac and any adjacent lipoma are inverted through the internal ring into the abdominal cavity, the plug is inserted with a clamp and placed into position beneath the crura. The plug must be secured to the internal ring with multiple interrupted sutures to x the device in permanent position and prevent migration. Usually at the end of the repair, an onlay patch is placed on the anterior surface of the posterior wall of the inguinal canal to reinforce it inducing additional broplasia, thus preventing a medial hernia. In this way, MPR should rather be named “plug-andpatch” repair (Fig.27.1).

In recurrent “internal” hernias, where the sac protrudes near the pubic tubercle, the sac is simply dissected down to its base on the inguinal oor and then circumscribed to permit full access to pre-peritoneal space. The plug is nally inserted into the defect and secured with multiple anchoring sutures between the device and the scarred margin of the oor defect and/or pubic tubercle.

In femoral hernias, the skin incision is located directly over the hernia impulse and the dissection is carried out on the hernia sac toward its base, at the orice of the femoral canal. The sac

Fig. 27.1 Surgical technique: Placement of the plug

is then reduced into the femoral canal and the plug is placed through the opening. After proper positioning, the external layer of the plug is secured with some sutures to the margins of the defect.

27.3 Comments

The above described procedure points out the surgical steps of MPR, referring to the original technique, proposed by Rutkow and Robbins for PerFix™ plug repair. Some modications have been done during the years [9, 10], and a large number of new plugs or 3D devices have been introduced on the market, made of new materials and displaying new proles, to meet the current requirements of hernia surgery (Fig.27.2).

Following to the criticisms addressed to the plug, many new devices have been developed so to meet the emerging needs. Which are these criticisms?

In 2009, the European Hernia Society (EHS) guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adults concluded that the 3D mesh repair could be considered an alternative procedure to Lichtenstein technique (recommendation, grade B), although only short-term results were available at that moment [11]. In 2014, an update of the EHS guidelines, on the basis of a larger number of available data, conrmed that 3D mesh techniques were acceptable for hernia repair, with outcomes comparable to the Lichtenstein herniorrhaphy, except a shorter operative time [12]. However, the plug repair was somehow criticized: the excessive use of foreign material, the additional cost of the device, the chance of plug migration/erosion, the need to enter both the posterior and anterior plane of inguinal region, and the limited number of long-term follow-up studies. On the basis of these critics, more recently the HerniaSurge guidelines for groin hernia management have concluded that “the use of other meshes or gadgets to replace the standard at mesh in the Lichtenstein technique is currently not recommended” [13].

Many trials compared MPR and Lichtenstein technique. We collected 15 RCTs in a systemic

27 Mesh Plug Repair

abcde

fghi l

mnopq

Fig. 27.2 Plugs and 3D devices available on the market

265

Table 27.1 MPR vs. Lichtenstein: RCTs

Lichtenstein vs. MPR Kingsnorth AN (short-term) [14] Kingsnorth AN (medium-term) [15] Testini M [16] Bringman S [17] Adamonis W [18] Bolognini S [19] Horharin P [20] Frey DN [21] Sanders DL [22] Droeser RA [23] Ripetti V [24]

Lichtenstein vs. PHS vs. MPR Nienhuijs SW [25] Mayagoitia JC [26] Dalenbäck J [27] Nienhuijs SW [28]

review (Table27.1) [14–28]. These showed comparable outcomes in the short and long period, in terms of return to normal activity, postoperative complications, chronic pain, and recurrence rate, with statistically signicant shorter operative time in the plug repair group, even if the gap is less than 10min. Two meta-analysis comparing different open techniques, including Lichtenstein and plug repair, conrmed that both procedures were equivalent in most of the analyzed outcomes, with the above demonstrated shorter surgical time associated with mesh plug technique

[29, 30]. Interestingly, two trials showed, from the surgeon’s point of view, that MPR was signicantly superior to the Lichtenstein operation in terms of perceived difculty and surgeon’s satisfaction [25, 27]. Actually MPR had been proved to be the fastest to perform and the easiest to learn by 70 experts in hernia surgery [31]. Four RCTs reported long-term results, from 36 to 76 months [23, 26–28]. None of them showed relevant differences in recurrence, chronic pain, or other complications, as migrating mesh plug. In one RCT, the overall cumulative reoperation rate was fairly higher in the Lichtenstein group [23]. Nevertheless, the main criticism to plug repair continues to refer to the natural history of the mesh. The plug can shrink (meshoma), could migrate and erode the surrounding structures (cecum, sigmoid colon, ileum, bladder), or can be responsible for chronic pain. The cone tip of the device could act as a pivot, and any tilt or drift of the plug could play a role in the pathophysiology of the mesh migration [32]. Mesh migration might happen because of the movement toward the path of resistance, caused by a poor securement of the mesh, or might occur through surrounding structures conditioned by erosion caused by a foreign body reaction [33].

How common is the migration/erosion of the plug really? A previous review of the literature collected seven case reports published between

266

F. Gossetti et al.

Table 27.2 Plug migration/erosion: visceral involvement

Reference Chuback JA

[37] Tokunaga Y [38] Moorman ML [39] Benedetti M [40] Murphy JW [41] Ojo P [42] 8years Lower quadrant

Zubaidi A [43] Stout CL [44] Liang X [45] Ortiz JA [46]

Ishiguro Y [47] Chen MJ [48] Ratajczak A [49] Yilmaz I [50] Ishikawa S [51] Sekiguchi K [52] Yamamoto S [53] Scaringi S [54] Veroux M [55]

Time lapse

2years Occlusion Small bowel

7years Rectal bleeding

15years Lower quadrant

2years Rectal bleeding

2years Lower quadrant

2years Colocutaneous

nr Occlusion Small bowel

3years Occlusion Small bowel

nr Necrosis

3years Colocutaneous

2years Perforation Small bowel

2years Obstruction (C

3years Occlusion Sigmoid

5years Bladder skin

13years Colocutaneous

2years Occlusion Small bowel

26years Colocutaneous

6years Hydronephrosis

Clinical presentation Site

(D like)

pain

(D like)

pain (D like)

mass (C like)

stula (D)

(kidney Tx recipient)

stula

like)

stula

stula (D)

(kidney Tx recipient)

Sigmoid colon Small bowel

Sigmoid colon Sigmoid colon Cecum

Sigmoid colon

Ureter

Sigmoid colon

colon Bladder

Cecum

Sigmoid colon Ureter

1995 and 2006 [34], including two hernia recurrences, which should be excluded due to migration of the plug into the scrotum without any other clinical involvement [35, 36]. We extended the review over the last decade, collecting further 14 reports of plug-related visceral involvement (Table27.2) [37–55]. In two other cases, the plug migration was revealed as an incidentaloma at CT scan, without any clinical sign [56, 57].

Thesigmoid colon was the site more frequently involved, followed by the small bowel and cecum. The plug affected the urinary tract in three cases only. Symptoms related to plug migration or erosion apparently occur mainly in the rst 3years after the hernia repair, even if few reports suggest that the time interval might be longer. Clinical ndings (occlusion, bleeding) mimicking carcinoma of lower gastrointestinal tract were frequently associated. The majority of the patients with sigmoid involvement suffered from diverticular disease.

Some surgeons suggest that migration may not be as uncommon as it seems to appear from the collection of anecdotal reports in the surgical literature [58]. Other cases of plug migration could not come to publication for medicolegal implications, indifference of the authors, or lack of recognition; the actual rate, therefore, could be underestimated. However, this opinion is in contrast with the results of population studies in which no case of mesh migration has ever been seen in the long run [23, 34, 59–61]. At the end of the 1990s, an Italian national inquiry, collecting 19,700 MPRs, showed only ve cases of inner migration of the plug [62]. At the fth International Hernia Congress of the American Hernia Society (AHS), we presented a search of the US Food and Drug Administration MAUDE for key word mesh plug (PerFix™) to nd reports not published in the literature (from 1999 to

2011). We were able to collect only six cases of visceral involvement due to migration/erosion of the plug [63]. At the end of 2015, the total number reached 15 cases. In conclusion, visceral involvement following plug repair is a very rare complication, reported in literature as anecdotal clinical case, as it occurs for TAPP or TEP techniques [64].

Can the outcome of MPR be improved? Can the risk of migration/erosion be reduced? [65]. The answer is positive. The rst suggestion consists in selecting proper indications, limiting plug repair to the treatment of lateral hernias, to femoral hernias, and to selected types of recurrences, and avoiding it in patients suffering from left groin hernia and colonic diverticular disease or in case of sliding hernias; secondly it is important to

27 Mesh Plug Repair

267

pay attention to technical details, such as to avoid excision of the sac and lipoma, to identify and repair any tears of peritoneum, to avoid to place the plug too deep into the inguinal canal, and to secure the plug with a number of sutures; thirdly it is important to choose the proper plug. A new generation of plugs and 3D devices, made from lightweight or semi-absorbable or completely absorbable materials, and improved proles are available today on the market. Some of these have proved to provide benets [22, 66, 67]. Others seem to show favorable effects in selected cases [68–70]. Finally new “all-in-one” devices allow a plug-and-patch repair without any risk of migration [71].

We do not agree with those who consider MPR as gadget surgery, highlighting the market- ing of the technique. The additional cost of the device doesn’t justify this criticism, though other commended techniques, such as TAPP or TEP repair, are more expensive. Instead with the same outcome and comparable complication rate, other parameters should be considered when selecting the more effective repair, like the surgeon’s satisfaction [72]. MPR offers the fastest learning curve and the shortest operative time [31]. The plug should be kept in the armamentarium of a general surgeon interested in a tailored approach to groin hernia surgery.

References

1. Negro P, Gossetti F, Ceci F, Manto O, D’Amore

L.Davide Fieschi: a pioneer of plug repair in groin hernia surgery. Hernia. 2014;18:919–23.

2. Gilbert AI. An anatomical and functional classica-

tion for the diagnosis and treatment of inguinal hernia. Am J Surg. 1989;157:331–3.

3. Trabucco EE. Routine sutureless mesh in primary

inguinal hernioplasty. Am Coll Surg. 1989;13:541–4.

4. Rutkow IM, Robbins AW. 1669 mesh plug hernio-

plasties. Contemp Surg. 1993;43:141–7.

5. Rutkow IM, Robbins AW.Mesh plug hernia repair: a

follow-up report. Surgery. 1995;117:597–8.

6. Read R. Milestones in the history of hernia surgery:

prosthetic repair. Hernia. 2004;8:8–14.

7. Gilbert AI, Graham MF, Voigt WL.A bilayer devices

for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 1999;3:161–6.

8. Campanelli GP, Pettinari D, Nicolosi FM, Cavalli

M, Contessini Avesani E.Inguinal hernia recurrence: classication and approach. Hernia. 2006;10:159–61.

9. Pelissier EP, Blum D, Dams JM, Marre P.The plug method in inguinal hernia: a prospective evaluation. Hernia. 1999;4:201–4.

10. Millikan KW, Cummings B, Doolas A.A prospective study of the mesh plug hernioplasty. Am Surg. 2001;67:285–9.

11. Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, Bouillot JL, Campanelli G, Conze J, de Lange D, Fortelny R, Heikkinen T, Kingsnorth A, Kukleta J, Morales-Conde S, Nordin P, Schumpelick V, Smedberg S, Smietanski M, Weber G, Miserez M. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia. 2009;13:343–403.

12. Miserez M, Peeters E, Aufenacker T, Bouillot JL, Campanelli G, Conze J, Fortelny R, Heikkinen T, Jorgensen LN, Kukleta J, Morales-Conde S, Nordin P, Schumpelick V, Smedberg S, Smietanski M, Weber G, Simons MP. Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia. 2014;18:151–63.

13. Weyhe D.New worldwide guidelines for treatment of inguinal hernia: the most important recommendations from HerniaSurge. Chirurg. 2017;88(7):628. https://

doi.org/10.1007/s00104-017-0386-3.

14. Kingsnorth AN, Porter CS, Bennett DH, Walker AJ, Hyland ME, Sodergren S.Lichtenstein patch or Perx plug-and-patch in inguinal hernia: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial of short-term outcome. Surgery. 2000;127:276–83.

15. Kingsnorth AN, Hyland M, Porter RN, Sodergren S. Perx plug and patch versus Lichtenstein patch in inguinal hernia: prospective randomized doubleblind study of medium-term outcome. Proceedings from “Hernia in the 21st Century” (Toronto, 2000), Meeting book; 2002. p.246.

16. Testini M, Miniello S, Piccinni G, Di Venere B, Lissidini G, Greco L, Bonomo GM.Trabucco versus Rutkow versus Lichtenstein techniques in the treatment of groin hernia. A controlled randomized clinical trial. Minerva Chir. 2002;57:371–6.

17. Bringman S, Ramel S, Heikkinen TJ, Englund T, Westman B, Anderberg B.Tension-free inguinal hernia repair: TEP versus mesh-plug versus Lichtenstein: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2003;237:142–7.

18. Adamonis W, Witkowski P, Smietański M, Bigda J, Sledziński Z.Is there a need for a mesh plug in inguinal hernia repair? Randomized, prospective study of the use of Hertra 1 mesh compared to PerFix plug. Hernia. 2006;10:223–8.

19. Bolognini S, Orsini V, Grandinetti PP, Pata F, Sacco R.Lichtenstein vs. Rutkow-Robbins technique in the treatment of primary inguinal hernia. Analysis of the long term results. Ann Ital Chir. 2006;77:51–6.

20. Horharin P, Wilasrusmee C, Cherudchayaporn K, Pinyaku N, Phanpradi O, Phromsopha N.Comparative study of tailor-made mesh plug herniorrhaphy versus Lichtenstein herniorrhaphy versus Bassini operation: a prospective clinical trial. Asian J Surg. 2006;29:74–8.

268

F. Gossetti et al.

21. Frey DM, Wildisen A, Hamel CT, Zuber M, Oertli D, Metzger J.Randomized clinical trial of Lichtenstein's operation versus mesh plug for inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2007;94:36–41.

22. Sanders DL, Samarakoon DH, Ganshirt SW, Porter CS, Kingsnorth AN. A two-centre blinded randomised control study comparing the Lichtenstein patch, Perx plug and ProLoop plug in the repair of primary inguinal hernia. Hernia. 2009;13:499–503.

23. Droeser RA, Dell-Kuster S, Kurmann A, Rosenthal R, Zuber M, Metzger J, Oertli D, Hamel CT, Frey DM. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein’s operation versus mesh plug repair for inguinal hernia. Ann Surg. 2014;259:966–72.

24. Ripetti V, La Vaccara V, Greco S, Bono F, Valeri S, Coppola R.Randomised trial comparing Lichtenstein vs Trabucco vs Valenti techniques in inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2014;18:205–12.

25. Nienhuijs SW, van Oort I, Keemers-Gels ME, Strobbe LJ, Rosman C. Randomized trial comparing the Prolene Hernia System, mesh plug repair and Lichtenstein method for open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2005;92:33–8.

26. Mayagoitia JC, Prieto-Díaz Chávez E, Suárez D, Cisneros HA, Tene CE.Predictive factors comparison of complications and recurrences in three tension-free herniorraphy techniques. Hernia. 2006;10:147–51.

27. Dalenbäck J, Andersson C, Anesten B, Björck S, Eklund S, Magnusson O, Rimbäck G, Stenquist B, Wedel N. Prolene Hernia System, Lichtenstein mesh and plug-and-patch for primary inguinal hernia repair: 3-year outcome of a prospective randomised controlled trial. The BOOP study: bi-layer and connector, on-lay, and on-lay with plug for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2009;13:121–9.

28. Nienhuijs SW, Rosman C.Long-term outcome after randomizing prolene hernia system, mesh plug repair and Lichtenstein for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2015;19:77–81.

29. Zhao G, Gao P, Ma B, Tian J, Yang K.Open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2009;250:35–42.

30. Li J, Ji Z, Li Y. Comparison of mesh-plug and Lichtenstein for inguinal hernia repair: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Hernia. 2012;16:541–8.

31. Negro P, D'Amore L, Gossetti F.Mesh plug repair and surgeon's satisfaction. Hernia. 2010;14:223–34.

32. Huang CS, Huang CC, Lien HH.Prolene hernia system compared with mesh plug technique: a prospective study of short- to mid-term outcomes in primary groin hernia repair. Hernia. 2005;9:167–71.

33. Agrawal A, Avill R.Mesh migration following repair of inguinal hernia: a case report and review of literature. Hernia. 2006;10:79–82.

34. Jeans S, Williams GL, Stephenson BM. Migration after open mesh plug inguinal hernioplasty: a review of the literature. Am Surg. 2007;73:207–9.

35. Dieter RA Jr. Mesh plug migration into scrotum: a new complication of hernia repair. Int Surg. 1999;84:57–9.

36. Nowak DD, Chin AC, Singer MA, Helton WS.Large scrotal hernia: a complicated case of mesh migration, ascites, and bowel strangulation. Hernia. 2005;9:96–9.

37. Chuback JA, Singh RS, Sills C, Dick LS.Small bowel obstruction resulting from mesh plug migration after open inguinal hernia repair. Surgery. 2000;127:475–6.

38. Tokunaga Y, Tokuka A, Ohsumi K. Sigmoid colon diverticulosis adherent to mesh plug migration after open inguinal hernia repair. Curr Surg. 2001;58:493–4.

39. Moorman ML, Price PD.Migrating mesh plug: complication of a well-established hernia repair technique. Am Surg. 2004;70:298–9.

40. Benedetti M, Albertario S, Niebel T, Bianchi C, Tinozzi FP, Moglia P, Arcidiaco M, Tinozzi S. Intestinal perforation as a long-term complication of plug and mesh inguinal hernioplasty: case report. Hernia. 2005;9:93–5.

41. Murphy JW, Misra DC, Silverglide B. Sigmoid colonic stula secondary to Perx-plug, left inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2006;10:436–8.

42. Ojo P, Abenthroth A, Fiedler P, Yavorek G.Migrating mesh mimicking colonic malignancy. Am Surg. 2006;72:1210–1.

43. Zubaidi AM, Al Saghier M, Kabbani M, Abdo A.Colocutaneous stula after mesh plug inguinal hernia repair- a delayed complication. Ann Saudi Med. 2006;26:385–7.

44. Stout CL, Foret A, Christie DB, Mullis E. Small bowel volvulus caused by migrating mesh plug. Am Surg. 2007;73:796–7.

45. Liang X, Cai XJ, Yu H, Wang YF.Strangulated bowel obstruction resulting from mesh plug migration after open inguinal hernioplasty: case report. Chin Med J. 2008;121:183–4.

46. Ortiz JA, Palladino H, Thomas S, Zaki R.Mesh plug and ureteral necrosis after kidney transplantation. Hernia. 2008;12:433–5.

47. Ishiguro Y, Horie H, Satoh H, Miyakura Y, Yasuda Y, Lefor AT.Colocutaneous stula after left inguinal hernia repair using the mesh plug technique. Surgery. 2009;145:120–1.

48. Chen MJ, Tian YF. Intraperitoneal migration of a mesh plug with a small intestinal perforation: report of a case. Surg Today. 2010;40:566–8.

49. Ratajczak A, Kościński T, Banasiewicz T, LangeRatajczak M, Hermann J, Bobkiewicz A, Drews M. Migration of biomaterials used in gastroenterological surgery. Pol Przegl Chir. 2013;85:377–80.

50. Yilmaz I, Karakaş DO, Sucullu I, Ozdemir Y, Yucel E. A rare cause of mechanical bowel obstruction: mesh migration. Hernia. 2013;17:267–9.

51. Ishikawa S, Kawano T, Karashima R, Arita T, Yagi Y, Hirota M. A case of mesh plug migration into the bladder 5 years after hernia repair. Surg Case Rep. 2015;1(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/

s40792-014-0004-2.

52. Sekiguchi K, Mizuguchi Y, Mamada Y, Koizumi M, Uchida E. Intraperitoneal migration of a mesh plug

27 Mesh Plug Repair

269

from a hernioplasty forming a colocutaneous stula with the cecum: report of a case. J Nippon Med Sch. 2015;82:246–9.

53. Yamamoto S, Kubota T, Abe T. A rare case of mechanical bowel obstruction caused by mesh plug migration. Hernia. 2015;19:983–5.

54. Scaringi S, Ardu M, Zambonin D, Giudici F, Bechi P.Sigmoidocutaneous stula 26 years after left inguinal hernia repair with mesh-plug technique. Am Surg. 2016;82:E52–3.

55. Veroux M, Ardita V, Zerbo D, Caglià P, Palmucci S, Sinagra N, Giaquinta A, Veroux P. First case report of acute renal failure after mesh-plug inguinal hernia repair in a kidney transplant recipient. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(13):e3199. https://doi.org/

10.1097/MD.0000000000003199.

56. Eid JJ, Rodriguez A, Radecke JM, Murr MM. An unusual cecal mass on routine colonoscopy. J Surg Case Rep. 2014;2014(11):rju119. https://doi.

org/10.1093/jscr/rju119.

57. Scheuer LS, Schnelldorfer T. Inguinal hernia mesh plug migrated into the abdominal cavity. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:1187–8.

58. LeBlanc KA.Complications associated with the plugand-patch method of inguinal herniorraphy. Hernia. 2001;5:135–8.

59. Negro P, Gossetti F, D'Amore L, Proposito D, Vermeil V, Battillocchi B, Della Rocca G, Carboni M. 1,000 prosthetic hernia repairs: experience of a dedicated team. Chir Ital. 2000;52:279–88.

60. Pikoulis E, Daskalakis P, Psallidas N, Karavokyros I, Stathoulopolos A, Godevenos D, Leppaniemi A, Tsatsoulis P. Marlex mesh Prex plug hernioplasty retrospective analysis of 865 operations. World J Surg. 2005;229:231–4.

61. Millikan KW, Doolas A.A long-term evaluation of the modied mesh-plug hernioplasty in over 2,000 patients. Hernia. 2008;12:257–60.

62. Negro P, D’Amore L, Gossetti F, Battilocchi B, Vermeil V, Dandolo R. Follow-up of plug in long run hernia surgery. Results from a national inquiry. Hernia. 2001;5(Suppl 1):S31.

63. Negro P, Gossetti F, Dassatti M, Manzi E, D’Amore L.Plug repair. Hernia. 2012;(Suppl 1):S42.

64. Hamouda A, Kennedy J, Grant N, Nigam A, Karanjia N. Mesh erosion into the urinary bladder following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair; is this the tip of the iceberg? Hernia. 2010;14:317–9.

65. D'Amore L, Gossetti F, Manto O, Negro P.Mesh plug repair: can we reduce the risk of plug erosion into the sigmoid colon? Hernia. 2012;16:495–6.

66. Mutter D, Champault G, Binot D, Vix M, Leroy J, Marescaux J. PerFix™ plug versus 4DDOME(®) implants for inguinal hernia repair: prospective multicentric randomised controlled trial. Hernia. 2012;16:561–6.

67. Hirose T, Takayama Y, Komatsu S, Shingu Y, Sakamoto E, Norimizu S, Hasegawa H.Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight or heavyweight mesh for mesh plug repair of primary inguinal hernia. Hernia. 2014;18:213–9.

68. Efthimiou M, Symeonidis D, Koukoulis G, Tepetes K, Zacharoulis D, Tzovaras G.Open inguinal hernia repair with the use of a polyglycolic acid-trimethylene carbonate absorbable mesh: a pilot study. Hernia. 2011;215:181–4.

69. Negro P, Gossetti F, Dassatti MR, Andreuccetti J, D'Amore L. Bioabsorbable Gore BIO-A plug and patch hernia repair in young adults. Hernia. 2012;16:121–2.

70. Negro P, Campanelli G, Ipponi PL, Gossetti F, Dassatti MR, Manto O, D'Amore L.Selective use of bioabsorbable Gore BIO-A plug and patch for groin hernia repair. Hernia. 2013;17:795–6.

71. Gossetti F, Massa S, Abbonante F, Calabria M, Ceci F, Viarengo MA, Manzi E, D’Amore L, Negro P.New “all-in-one” device for mesh plug hernioplasty: the Trabucco repair. Ann Ital Chir. 2015;86:570–4.

72. Kaafarani HM, Itani KM, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gleysteen JJ, McCarthy M Jr, Gibbs J, Neumayer L. Does surgeon frustration and satisfaction with the operation predict outcomes of open or laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair? J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200:677–83.

<<< < Предыдущая 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2627 / 5027 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 > Следующая >>>

Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана

#
30.08.202649 Мб0Книга_747_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
30.08.202649 Мб0Книга_749_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
30.08.202649 Мб0Книга_750_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
30.08.202648 Мб0Книга_751_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
30.08.202648 Мб0Книга_752_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
30.08.202648 Мб0Книга_753_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
30.08.202648 Мб0Книга_754_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
30.08.202648 Мб0Книга_755_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
30.08.202647 Мб0Книга_758_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
30.08.202647 Мб0Книга_759_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
#
30.08.202647 Мб0Книга_761_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf