2016Menoufia Medical JournalRequires access

Shoelace darn repair versus mesh repair hernioplasty in treating midline abdominal incisional hernia

AymanM Al-Ebiary, SamirM Kohla, HossamA El-Fol, AhmedS El-Gammal

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the efficiency and safety between the use of shoelace darn repair and the use of mesh repair in the management of midline abdominal incisional hernia.BackgroundMidline abdominal incisional hernia is a complication caused by surgical wounds after different surgical procedures. Management of midline abdominal incisional hernia is performed through different surgical approaches.Patients and methodsThis was a 1-year, prospective, randomized study including 40 patients with midline abdominal incisional hernia. The patients were divided into two equal groups - group I (20 patients) repaired by shoelace darn repair and group II (20 patients) repaired using a polypropylene mesh. Both groups were evaluated for incidence of infection, hematoma formation, seroma formation, and recurrence for 12 months.ResultsWound hematoma was found in one patient (5%) from group I and in one patient from group II (5%); there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to hematoma (P = 0.987). Similarly, seroma was found in one patient (5%) from group I and in one patient from group II (5%); there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to seroma (P = 0.987). Three patients (15%) from group I had recurrence of hernia, whereas two from group II had recurrence of hernia (10%), and statistical analysis proved that there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to hernial recurrence (P = 0.637). One patient (5%) from group I complained of postoperative chronic pain, whereas two from group II (10%) complained of postoperative pain, and statistical analysis proved that there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to postoperative chronic pain (P = 0.553). Wound infection was found in one patient (5%) from group I and in three patients from group II (15%), and statistical analysis proved that there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to wound infection (P = 0.602).ConclusionFrom the present study, we concluded that shoelace darn repair is a better option for managing midline abdominal incisional hernias.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the efficiency and safety between the use of shoelace darn repair and the use of mesh repair in the management of midline abdominal incisional hernia.BackgroundMidline abdominal incisional hernia is a complication caused by surgical wounds after different surgical procedures. Management of midline abdominal incisional hernia is performed through different surgical approaches.Patients and methodsThis was a 1-year, prospective, randomized study including 40 patients with midline abdominal incisional hernia. The patients were divided into two equal groups - group I (20 patients) repaired by shoelace darn repair and group II (20 patients) repaired using a polypropylene mesh. Both groups were evaluated for incidence of infection, hematoma formation, seroma formation, and recurrence for 12 months.ResultsWound hematoma was found in one patient (5%) from group I and in one patient from group II (5%); there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to hematoma (P = 0.987). Similarly, seroma was found in one patient (5%) from group I and in one patient from group II (5%); there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to seroma (P = 0.987). Three patients (15%) from group I had recurrence of hernia, whereas two from group II had recurrence of hernia (10%), and statistical analysis proved that there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to hernial recurrence (P = 0.637). One patient (5%) from group I complained of postoperative chronic pain, whereas two from group II (10%) complained of postoperative pain, and statistical analysis proved that there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to postoperative chronic pain (P = 0.553). Wound infection was found in one patient (5%) from group I and in three patients from group II (15%), and statistical analysis proved that there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to wound infection (P = 0.602).ConclusionFrom the present study, we concluded that shoelace darn repair is a better option for managing midline abdominal incisional hernias.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the efficiency and safety between the use of shoelace darn repair and the use of mesh repair in the management of midline abdominal incisional hernia.BackgroundMidline abdominal incisional hernia is a complication caused by surgical wounds after different surgical procedures. Management of midline abdominal incisional hernia is performed through different surgical approaches.Patients and methodsThis was a 1-year, prospective, randomized study including 40 patients with midline abdominal incisional hernia. The patients were divided into two equal groups - group I (20 patients) repaired by shoelace darn repair and group II (20 patients) repaired using a polypropylene mesh. Both groups were evaluated for incidence of infection, hematoma formation, seroma formation, and recurrence for 12 months.ResultsWound hematoma was found in one patient (5%) from group I and in one patient from group II (5%); there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to hematoma (P = 0.987). Similarly, seroma was found in one patient (5%) from group I and in one patient from group II (5%); there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to seroma (P = 0.987). Three patients (15%) from group I had recurrence of hernia, whereas two from group II had recurrence of hernia (10%), and statistical analysis proved that there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to hernial recurrence (P = 0.637). One patient (5%) from group I complained of postoperative chronic pain, whereas two from group II (10%) complained of postoperative pain, and statistical analysis proved that there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to postoperative chronic pain (P = 0.553). Wound infection was found in one patient (5%) from group I and in three patients from group II (15%), and statistical analysis proved that there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to wound infection (P = 0.602).ConclusionFrom the present study, we concluded that shoelace darn repair is a better option for managing midline abdominal incisional hernias.

Key concepts: Medicine, Seroma, Hematoma, Surgery, Incisional hernia, Hernia, Complication, Abdominal Hernia

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Shoelace darn repair versus mesh repair hernioplasty in treating midline abdominal incisional hernia — Research Paper | ScholarLens