English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Background. This study aims to evaluate and compare the results of inguinal herniorrhaphy with mesh in classic and preperitoneal method. Methods. Our study community includes 150 candidate patients for inguinal herniorrhaphy with mesh. Totally, 150 candidate patients for inguinal herniorrhaphy were randomly divided into two groups: (1) classic group in which the floor of the canal was repaired and the mesh was located on the floor of the canal and (2) preperitoneal group in which the mesh was installed under the canal and then the floor was repaired. Results. The frequency of recurrence was 10 (13.3%) and 2 (2.66%) in the classic and preperitoneal group, respectively. The frequency of postsurgical pain was 21 (28%) in the classic group and 9 (12%) in the preperitoneal group. The postsurgical hematoma was observed in 7 (9.3%) and 9 (12%) in the classic and preperitoneal group, respectively. Also, the frequency of postsurgical seroma was 8 (10.7%) and 1 (1.3%) in the patients treated with the classic and preperitoneal method, respectively. Conclusion. The findings of the present study demonstrated that the preperitoneal method is a more suitable method for inguinal herniorrhaphy than the classic one because of fewer complications, according to the findings of this study.

biomed research international

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes of Surgical Repair in Inguinal Hernia with Classic versus Preperitoneal Methods on Reduction of Postoperative Complications