west china medical publishers
Author
  • Title
  • Author
  • Keyword
  • Abstract
Advance search
Advance search

Search

find Author "YANDong" 2 results
  • Open Preperitoneal Repair versus Lichtenstein Repair for Inguinal Hernia: A Systematic Review

    ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of the open preperitoneal approaches and the Lichtenstein technique in the repair of inguinal hernias. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP were electronically searched for relevant studies from their inception to October 2013. References of the included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2.5 software. ResultsA total of 9 RCT involving 1 246 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:compared with Lichtenstein repair, the preperitoneal technique was associated with a lower incidence of chronic pain (RR=0.39, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.58, P < 0.000 01), sensation of a foreign body (RR=0.49, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.79, P=0.003), recurrence (RR=0.37, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.89, P=0.03), and hematoma (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.67, P=0.000 3). However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of wound infection (RR=0.89, 95%CI 0.29 to 2.76, P=0.85) and urine retention (RR=0.75, 95%CI 0.35 to 1.61, P=0.46). ConclusionThe open preperitoneal approach is a feasible alternative for inguinal hernia repair with less postoperative complication compared with Lichtenstein procedure. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the aforementioned conclusion still needs to be verified by conducting more high quality studies.

    Release date: Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • Embolization of type Ⅱ endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a single center experience

    Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of treating type Ⅱ endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms with coil embolization. Methods A retrospective review of patients with type Ⅱ endoleaks treated with coil embolization was performed. Data regarding the technical, clinical, and imaging outcomes during perioperation and followed-up were collected. Results The technical success rate and the initial clinical success rate of treating type Ⅱ endoleaks with coil embolization were 100% (14/14). The mean operating time was (124.3±11) min, a mean of (127±15) mL contrast agent and a mean of (7±2) coils were used. During perioperation, one patient suffered left limb paralysis, all the patients were discharged with no perioperative mortality. Twelve patients were followed-up. During the period of 3 to 57 months of followed-up (average: 17.3 months), Type Ⅱ endoleaks reoccurred in one patient with coil embolization of the feeding vessels alone and two patients with coil embolization of the aneurysm sac alone. Since the aneurysms did not enlarge during the followed-up, these 3 patients continued followed-up without reinterventions. Conclusion Treating type Ⅱ endoleaks with coil embolization appears to be safe, and it can prevent aneurysm sac enlargement effectively. Because of the high risk of reoccurrence, follow-up after embolization is important.

    Release date:2017-01-18 08:04 Export PDF Favorites Scan
1 pages Previous 1 Next

Format

Content