Hyppää sisältöön
    • Suomeksi
    • In English
  • Suomeksi
  • In English
  • Kirjaudu
Näytä aineisto 
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Parastomal Hernia: A Retrospective Nationwide Cohort Study Comparing Different Techniques with Long-Term Follow-Up

Kalliala Maija; Kechagias Aristotelis; Välikoski Anu; Kössi Jyrki; Nordström Pia; Ohtonen Pasi; Vironen Jaana; Scheinin Tom; Falenius Ville; Mäkäräinen-Uhlback Elisa; Rantanen Tuomo; Rautio Tero; Mattila Anne

Parastomal Hernia: A Retrospective Nationwide Cohort Study Comparing Different Techniques with Long-Term Follow-Up

Kalliala Maija
Kechagias Aristotelis
Välikoski Anu
Kössi Jyrki
Nordström Pia
Ohtonen Pasi
Vironen Jaana
Scheinin Tom
Falenius Ville
Mäkäräinen-Uhlback Elisa
Rantanen Tuomo
Rautio Tero
Mattila Anne
Katso/Avaa
Publisher's version (404.4Kb)
Lataukset: 

SPRINGER
doi:10.1007/s00268-021-05990-z
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on:
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2021093048599
Tiivistelmä

Background

Parastomal hernia repair is a complex surgical procedure with high recurrence and complication rates. This retrospective nationwide cohort study presents the results of different parastomal hernia repair techniques in Finland. 

Methods

All patients who underwent a primary end ostomy parastomal hernia repair in the nine participating hospitals during 2007-2017 were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were complications and re-operation rate. 

Results

In total, 235 primary elective parastomal hernia repairs were performed in five university hospitals and four central hospitals in Finland during 2007-2017. The major techniques used were the Sugarbaker (38.8%), keyhole (16.3%), and sandwich techniques (15.4%). In addition, a specific intra-abdominal keyhole technique with a funnel-shaped mesh was utilized in 8.3% of the techniques; other parastomal hernia repair techniques were used in 21.3% of the cases. The median follow-up time was 39.0 months (0-146, SD 35.3). The recurrence rates after the keyhole, Sugarbaker, sandwich, specific funnel-shaped mesh, and other techniques were 35.9%, 21.5%, 13.5%, 15%, and 35.3%, respectively. The overall re-operation rate was 20.4%, while complications occurred in 26.3% of patients.

Conclusion

The recurrence rate after parastomal hernia repair is unacceptable in this nationwide cohort study. As PSH repair volumes are low, further multinational, randomized controlled trials and hernia registry data are needed to improve the results.

Kokoelmat
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet [19207]

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste
 

 

Tämä kokoelma

JulkaisuajatTekijätNimekkeetAsiasanatTiedekuntaLaitosOppiaineYhteisöt ja kokoelmat

Omat tiedot

Kirjaudu sisäänRekisteröidy

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste