Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTufek, Ilter
dc.contributor.authorTuna, Mustafa Bilal
dc.contributor.authorArgun, Omer Burak
dc.contributor.authorKeskin, Selcuk
dc.contributor.authorObek, Can
dc.contributor.authorKural, Ali Riza
dc.contributor.authorSkolarikos, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorMourmouris, Panagiotis
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-03T14:59:15Z
dc.date.available2021-03-03T14:59:15Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationMourmouris P., Argun O. B. , Tufek I., Obek C., Skolarikos A., Tuna M. B. , Keskin S., Kural A. R. , "Nonprosthetic Direct Inguinal Hernia Repair During Robotic Radical Prostatectomy", JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, cilt.30, sa.2, ss.218-222, 2016
dc.identifier.issn0892-7790
dc.identifier.otherav_3c96bc48-62e3-4b99-b14e-b07e08441c2a
dc.identifier.othervv_1032021
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/44646
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0556
dc.description.abstractObjective: To report our experience with concomitant hernia repair during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with a nonprosthetic and tissue-based technique. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review on 1005 consecutive patients who underwent RARP between the years 2005 and 2015. Twenty-nine patients, who underwent 37, concurrent, direct, inguinal hernia repairs, were identified (group 1) and compared to a match control group of 29 patients who underwent RARP without hernia repair (group 2). Cases were matched 1:1 for age, body-mass index, and pathologic stage. The reinforcement of the floor was achieved with a modified posterior wall darn repair. The repair consisted of suturing the lateral edge of the rectus abdominis muscle sheath to the ileopectineal ligament (Cooper's ligament) with continuous prolene loose suture. This technique provided a tissue-based repair and the final reinforcement of the floor was expected to ensue by the secondary fibrotic tissue development and maturing between the sutures. Results: From a total of 1005 patients who underwent RARP, 29 (2.8%) were preoperatively identified with a primary, direct inguinal hernia and underwent concomitant inguinal herniorrhaphy. The operative time was 147 minutes for group 1 vs 143 minutes for group 2 (p=0.8). Estimated blood loss was 175mL for the group with the hernia repair vs 200mL for the group without repair (p=0.3). There were no Clavien-Dindo grade >1 complications observed in either of the groups. Mean follow-up period was 32.1 months for group 1 vs 33.3 for group 2 (p=0.8). Importantly, no hernia recurrences were observed. Conclusions: Inguinal hernias represent an important surgical issue and may be repaired concurrently during radical prostatectomy to minimize the risks of postoperative complications. The concomitant repair of inguinal hernias during robotic radical prostatectomy utilizing a nonprosthetic is a safe and feasible alternative for primary direct hernia repair during prostatectomy.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectSağlık Bilimleri
dc.subjectDahili Tıp Bilimleri
dc.subjectİç Hastalıkları
dc.subjectNefroloji
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp (MED)
dc.subjectTıp
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp
dc.subjectÜROLOJİ VE NEFROLOJİ
dc.titleNonprosthetic Direct Inguinal Hernia Repair During Robotic Radical Prostatectomy
dc.typeMakale
dc.relation.journalJOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY
dc.contributor.departmentİstanbul Üniversitesi , ,
dc.identifier.volume30
dc.identifier.issue2
dc.identifier.startpage218
dc.identifier.endpage222
dc.contributor.firstauthorID230120


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record