All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

Health Technology Assessment of laparoscopic compared to conventional surgery with and without mesh for incisional hernia repair regarding safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


Introduction: Incisional hernias are a common complication following abdominal surgery and they represent about 80% of all ventral hernia. In uncomplicated postoperative follow-up they can develop in about eleven percent of cases and up to 23% of cases with wound infections or other forms of wound complications. Localisation and size of the incisional hernia can vary according to the causal abdominal scar. Conservative treatment (e. g. weight reduction) is only available to relieve symptoms while operative treatments are the only therapeutic treatment option for incisional hernia. Traditionally, open suture repair was used for incisional hernia repair but was associated with recurrence rates as high as 46%. To strengthen the abdominal wall and prevent the development of recurrences the additional implantation of an alloplastic mesh is nowadays commonly used. Conventional hernia surgery as well as minimally invasive surgery, introduced in the early 90s, make use of this mesh-technique and thereby showed marked reductions in recurrence rates. However, there are possible side effects associated with mesh-implantation. Therefore recommendations remain uncertain on which technique to apply for incisional hernia repair and which technique might, under specific circumstances, be associated with advantages over others. Objectives: The goal of this HTA-Report is to compare laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LIHR) and conventional incisional hernia repair with and without mesh-implantation in terms of their medical efficacy and safety, their cost-effectiveness as well as their ethical, social und legal implications. In addition, this report aims to compare different techniques of mesh-implantation and mesh-fixation as well as to identify factors, in which certain techniques might be associated with advantages overothers. Methods: Relevant publications were identified by means of a structured search of databases accessed through the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI) as well as by a manual search. The former included the following electronic resources: SOMED (SM78), Cochrane Library – Central (CCTR93), MEDLINE Alert (ME0A), MEDLINE (ME95), CATFILEplus (CATLINE) (CA66), ETHMED (ED93), GeroLit (GE79), HECLINET (HN69), AMED (CB85), CAB s (CV72), GLOBAL Health (AZ72), IPA (IA70), Elsevier BIOBASE (EB94), BIOSIS Previews (BA93), EMBASE (EM95), EMBASE Alert (EA08), SciSearch (IS90), Cochrane Library – CDSR (CDSR93), NHS-CRD-DARE (CDAR94), NHS-CRD-HTA (INAHTA) as well as NHSEED (NHSEED). The present report includes German and English lit


comments powered by Disqus