Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 51813

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : March | Volume : 16 | Issue : 3 | Page : PC05 - PC09 Full Version

Comparison of Absorbable versus Non Absorbable Tackers for Fixation of Mesh in Laparoscopic Midline Anterior Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair: A Randomised Clinical Study


Published: March 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/50481.16103
Dhruv Gupta, Himanshu Agrawal, Nikhil Gupta, Yajushi Desiraju, Raghav Yelamanchi, CK Durga

1. Junior Resident, Department of Surgery, ABVIMS and Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi, India. 2. Senior Resident, Department of Surgery, ABVIMS and Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi, India. 3. Professor, Department of Surgery, ABVIMS and Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi, India. 4. Junior Resident, Department of Surgery, ABVIMS and Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi, India. 5. Junior Resident, Department of Surgery, ABVIMS and Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi, India. 6. Professor, Department of Surgery, ABVIMS and Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Nikhil Gupta,
Professor, Department of Surgery, ABVIMS and Dr. RML Hospital, Baba Khadak
Singh Marg, New Delhi, India.
E-mail: nikhilbinita@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Tackers are divided in two broad categories namely, absorbable and non absorbable. Absorbable tackers are believed to achieve sufficient tensile strength compared to conventional non absorbable tackers. It is a matter of debate that which type of tacker has an upper hand over the other especially in terms of postoperative pain and recurrences even after few years of clinical experience with these tackers and available clinical studies.

Aim: To compare various aspects of absorbable versus non absorbable tackers for fixation of mesh in Laparoscopic Midline Anterior Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair for short period of follow-up.

Materials and Methods: In this prospective randomised clinical study from November 2016 till March 2018 at Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences (ABVIMS) and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital, New Delhi, India. Total of 80 patients of age ≥18 years with midline anterior abdominal wall hernia were included and randomised into two groups 40 patients each i.e. group 1 absorbable tackers and group 2 non absorbable tackers. Outcomes evaluated were postoperative pain, seroma formation, paralytic ileus, early recurrence (3 months follow-up) and duration of hospital stay.The data acquired was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0. Comparison of ordinal paired data was done using Wilcoxon signed rank sum test. The nominal categorical data was compared using Chi-square or Fisher’s-exact test as appropriate. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: Out of 80 patients included in this study with a range of 21 to 60 years, the median age was 30 years. There was no statistically significant association noted in terms of postoperative pain (p-value >0.05), seroma formation (p-value=1), paralytic ileus (p-value >0.05), length of hospital stay (p-value=0.801) and early recurrence (3 months).

Conclusion: This study has shown that both non absorbable and absorbable tackers are associated with minimal postoperative complications and have similar postoperative morbidity. Both absorbable and non absorbable tackers are comparable for fixation of mesh in laparoscopic midline anterior abdominal wall hernia with respect to the above mentioned outcomes.

Keywords

Hernia complications, Intraperitoneal onlay meshplasty, Protacker, Securestrap, Ventral wall hernia

Hernia is one of the most commonly encountered surgical problem. Anterior abdominal wall hernia being the most common of all hernias is defined as bulging of part of the viscera of abdominal cavity with peritoneal covering through a defect or weakness in the abdominal wall muscle or its fascia (1),(2),(3).

It can be divided into incisional hernia, umbilical/paraumbilical hernia and epigastric hernia. With the evolving understanding of pathophysiology and cause of hernia recurrences, treatment of ventral hernia has also evolved. Primary suture repair of the defect has an extremely high recurrence rates (63%) and is therefore recommended only in some special circumstances (4). Open meshplasty is an advancement of primary repair where a prosthetic mesh reinforcement is done to augment the repair. This has led to a decrease in recurrence rates to 32.6% (4).

Finally, laparoscopic meshplasty has evolved to be a standard of care for most of the anterior abdominal wall hernias (4). Leblanc K in 1993 performed the first laparoscopic hernia repair and they documented certain advantages of laparoscopic meshplasty versus open meshplasty (5). To list, some of the various advantages include smaller incision with better cosmesis, less postoperative-pain, decreased hospital stay, lesser blood loss and low risk of infection (6),(7),(8).

Fixation of mesh is one of the most important steps in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. It is vitally important to fix the mesh to anterior abdominal wall with a proper technique to prevent mesh migration and to reduce complication like recurrence and postoperative pain (9). The fixation of mesh in laparoscopic hernia is still debatable in terms of the number, strength, and the type (absorbable or non absorbable). Fixation techniques include glue, sutures or tackering devices. Tackers are one of the commonly used fixative techniques owing to the simplicity. Tackers are either made up of non absorbable material (titanium) or absorbable material (polydioxanone and L(-)-lactide/glycolide copolymer, polyglycolide-co-L-lactide, poly (D,L)-lactide) (10).

The principle of absorbable fixation is that after the mesh is integrated within host tissue, permanent fixation is not needed (11). With the advent of tackering devices, it is obvious beyond doubt that they reduce the operative time over classical suture fixation techniques which had to be done manually (12). Absorbable Tackers (AT) are believed to achieve sufficient tensile strength comparable to conventional non absorbable tackers and trans-fascial suture repairs with added advantage of improved biocompatibility, reduced postoperative pain and decreased risk of peritoneal adhesions (13),(14). Both absorbable and Non Absorbable Tackers (NAT) may elicit chronic tissue pain however absorbable tackers are costly (15). The newer absorbable tackers made with strap principle are proposed to provide greater tissue holding at acute deployment angles. It is a matter of debate that which type of tacker has an upper hand over the other especially in terms of postoperative pain and recurrences even after few years of clinical experience with these tackers and available clinical studies. No study has been carried out using the absorbable tacker with strap technology. This study was thus carried out to compare the absorbable tackers with non absorbable tackers for mesh fixation in laparoscopic hernia repair to add on to the existing clinical data and help to find a solution for the debate. Authors hypothesised that the absorbable tackers are associated with lesser postoperative pain, seroma formation, hospital stay and early recurrence when compared to non absorbable tackers.

Material and Methods

This prospective randomised clinical trial was conducted at Department of Surgery, ABVIMS and Dr. RML Hospital, North India, from November 2016 to March 2018. The Institutional Ethics Committee’s approval for the study was secured prior to the commencement of the study, as it involved human participants with an approval number TP (MD/MS)(95/2019)/IEC/ABVIMS/RMLH. Patients were not involved in planning the study design. All patients were enrolled in the study after their written informed consent was obtained. The proceedings of the study are reported as per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. This was a single centre study with balanced randomisation (1:1); it was single-blinded and used a parallel group design (Table/Fig 1).

Inclusion criteria: All patients above the age of 18 years with midline anterior abdominal wall hernia were invited to participate in the study. Those who consented were enrolled in the study till the study sample size was reached (consecutive sampling).

Exclusion criteria: Patients with recurrent hernia, complicated hernia, strangulated hernia, hernia with defect of more than seven centimeters, lateral hernias and patient unfit for general anaesthesia were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: A total of 80 patients were enrolled, 40 in each group.

Here,

Z1-α/2=is standard normal variate {at 5% type I error (p<0.05), it is 1.96}

p=5% based on previous study (15)

d=absolute error of 5%

Using this formula minimum sample size calculated was 60.

Study Procedure

All patients who presented to the outpatient department with complaints and a history suggestive of ventral wall hernia were evaluated clinically and investigated further using imaging techniques. The size of the defect was detected clinically and by ultrasonography which was recorded on the patient proforma. Patients underwent preanaesthetic checkup and fitness tests for general anaesthesia. Patients were subjected to laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (intraperitoneal onlay meshplasty) with the use of composite mesh under general anaesthesia (15).

Prophylactic antibiotic amoxicillin clavulanate one gram was adm-inistered intravenously before the start of the procedure. Ports were inserted as per the size and location of hernia and adhesiolysis was done using harmonic scalpel. Once the defect was demonstrated, composite mesh was opened and inserted into the peritoneal cavity.

Same surgical team was present in all cases and a single main operating surgeon operated all the cases. Patients were randomised using the opaque sealed envelope method, which was opened in the Operating Theatre (OT) just before fixation of the mesh by a resident. One arm which was labelled as group 1 (absorbable tackers) and the other as group 2 (non absorbable tackers). Absorbable tackers used were of SECURESTRAP (Ethicon, New Jersey, United States). Non absorbable tackers used were of Pro Tacker (Covidien, Dublin, Ireland). In this single blinded study, patient was the blind component while the surgical team which was also the researcher knew the kind of treatment patient was receiving.

Tackers were applied in double crowning fashion. Injection Diclofenac sodium aqueous 75 mg intravenous infusion was given to all patients during reversal of anaesthesia and was repeated after eight hours. It was followed by tablet diclofenac sodium on as and when required basis mostly till 5 days. The present institute is a Government funded tertiary care teaching hospital and cost of tackers and mesh was born by Government funds so, cost-analysis of tackers was not carried out.

Outcomes evaluated were postoperative pain, seroma formation, paralytic ileus, early recurrence (3 months follow-up) and duration of hospital stay. The pain was recorded using the Visual Analog Scale that observes verbal score from 1 to 10 (16). These recordings were made at 6 hours, 24 hours, at the time of discharge, follow-up visits at 1 week, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after surgery. Any complications in the immediate postoperative period and during the follow-up visits for three months were recorded.

Statistical Analysis

The data acquired was analysed using SPSS version 22.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, International Business Machines Corporation, New York). Categorical variables were presented in frequency (n) and percentage (%), and continuous variables were presented as Mean±Standard Deviation (SD) and median. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The nominal categorical data was compared using Chi-square, Mann-Whitney test or Fisher’s-exact test as appropriate.

Results

In this study, a total of 80 cases of midline anterior abdominal wall hernia were included. Their mean age was 37.33 years with a range of 21 to 60 years. Mean±SD of age in years in group 1 was 36.25±9.4 and group 2 was 38.4±10.5 with no significant difference between the two groups (p-value=0.955). Majority of patients were females; 55% in group 1 and 60% in group 2 and proportion of males was 45% in group 1 and 40% in group 2 with no significant difference between them (p-value >0.05).

Two patients had epigastric hernia, 22 had incisional hernia, 26 had paraumbilical hernia and 30 had umbilical hernia. The variable defect size (cm) was normally distributed. Thus, parametric test was used for the comparison. No significant difference was seen in defect size (cm) between group 1 and 2 (p-value >0.05). Mean±SD of defect size (cm) in group 1 was 2.05±0.64 and group 2 was 1.83±0.64 with no significant difference between them.

1. Comparison of number of tackers between group 1 and 2 (Table/Fig 2)

Mean number of tackers applied in absorbable tacker group and non absorbable tacker group was 29.8±1.36 and 29.75±1.45, respectively with no significant difference (p-value >0.05).

2. Comparison of postoperative pain between group 1 and 2 (Table/Fig 3)

Postoperative pain was calculated at 6 hours, 24 hours, at discharge, at 1 week, at 1 month, at 2 months and at 3 months after surgery. In absorbable and non absorbable tacker group, the score was found to be 8.1±0.45 and 7.95±0.51, 6.05±0.94 and 5.6±1.1, 2.3±0.47 and 2.4±0.5, 1.1±0.31 and 1.05±0.22, 1±0 and 1±0, 1±0 and 1±0, 1±0 and 1±0, respectively. Statistical analysis shows that there was no significant correlation of group 1 and group 2 with postoperative pain (p-value >0.05).

3. Comparison of seroma at 3 months between group 1 and 2 (Table/Fig 4)

At 3 months follow-up period, in group 1, 2 out of 40 patients developed seroma while none of the patients in group 2 developed seroma. This association was found to be statistically insignificant (p-value=1.000).

4. Comparison of paralytic ileus between group 1 and 2.

No paralytic ileus was found in both the groups in any patient.

5. Comparison of duration of hospital stay (days) between group 1 and 2 (Table/Fig 5)

Postoperative hospital stay was 2.4±0.68 days in group 1 while it was 2.35±0.59 days in group 2. Maximum number of patients 56 (70%) were discharged on postoperative day 2, 18 (22.5%) were discharged on postoperative day 3 and 6 were discharged on postoperative day 4.

On Mann-Whitney test, no significant association was found between hospital stay duration and type of tacker used.

6. Comparison of recurrence at 3 months between group 1 and 2

No significant difference was seen in postoperative pain, seroma formation, occurrence of paralytic ileus, hospital stay duration and early recurrence between group 1 and 2 with p-value >0.05. There were no early recurrences in both the groups.

Discussion

The mean age of this study sample was 37.33 years with a range of 21 to 60 years, of which 46 patients (57.50%) were females and 34 patients (42.50%) were males. In the study by Colak E et al., 15.6% of non absorbable tacker group and 52.9% of absorbable tacker group were females (17). In contrast to this, in a study conducted by Bangash A and Khan N males outnumbered females in suture and tacker group (12).

Similar to present study, Bansal VK et al., also did not find any significant difference in the incidence of immediate postoperative and chronic pain over a mean follow-up of 8.8 months (n=90) (15). Vallabhbhai DS et al., also found no significant difference in the mean pain score between AT group and NAT group which were 6.47±1.57 and 6.6±1.19, respectively (p-value >0.5) (18). Similarly, Colak E et al., also found no significant difference in the mean pain score between AT and NAT groups at 0, 1 and 2 days (17). Khan RM et al., in their meta-analysis also concluded that there was no significant difference in the pain with type of tacker used (p-value- 0.64) (19). Many of the studies conclude recommending a study with larger sample size and long term follow-up to identify any difference in chronic pain (20),(21),(22),(23).

At three months follow-up period, in AT group, 2 out of 40 patients developed seroma while none of the patients in NAT group developed seroma. This association was found to be statistically insignificant (p-value=1.000). This result obtained was different from the results obtained by Colak E et al., who found that seroma formation was statistically significantly observed in AT group (17). Prakash P et al., also concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between groups (AT and NAT group) in terms of seroma formation (20). A meta-analysis conducted by Khan RM et al., also concluded that there was no significant association of seroma with type of tackers used (p-value=0.9600) (19). Contrary to this study, Smith AM et al., in their study found out more seroma formation in non absorbable tacker group (21).

In present study, paralytic ileus was absent in all the patients with no difference in the incidence of paralytic ileus between group 1 and 2. Prakash P et al., also in their study concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between groups (AT and NAT group) in terms of incidence of postoperative paralytic ileus (20). A meta-analysis conducted by Khan RM et al., concluded that there was no significant association of paralytic ileus with type of tacker used (p-value=0.99) (19). However, Colak E et al., concluded that there was statistically significant association between the incidence of postoperative paralytic ileus and use of absorbable tackers (17).

Early recurrences were not observed in any of the patients in both group 1 and group 2. Prakash P et al., also in their study concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between groups (AT and NAT group) in terms of hernia recurrences (20). In contrast, in the study by Colak E et al., as there was statistically significant association between hernia recurrence and the use of absorbable tackers (17). Comparison of the present study results with previous published literature has been mentioned in (Table/Fig 6) (15),(17),(18),(19),(22),(23).

In present study, mean postoperative hospital stay was 2.4±0.68 days in the AT group while it was 2.35±0.59 days in the NAT group. Maximum number of patients 56 (70%) were discharged on postoperative day 2. In the study conducted by Vallabhbhai DS et al., hospital stay duration was 1.5±0.572 days and 1.43±0.679 days in AT and NAT, respectively (18). It was not found to be statistically significant as in the present study. However, in study by Colak E et al., mean duration of hospital stay was 2.1 days and 2.5 days for AT group and NAT group, respectively, and had no significant difference (17).

Limitation(s)

The sample size is small. The center being a tertiary care center and referral center, the study may have centripetal bias. The follow-up period of the study is short to pick up only early recurrences.

Conclusion

This study has shown that both non absorbable and absorbable tackers are associated with minimal postoperative complications and have similar postoperative morbidity. It is further concluded that using absorbable tackers or non absorbable tackers during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair have no additional benefit in terms of postoperative pain, seroma formation, duration of hospital stay, early recurrence. As such, both non absorbable and absorbable tackers are safe and feasible for mesh fixation during laparoscopic hernia repair. In an era where absorbable tackers are dominating the market, it is suggested that further multicentric studies with large sample size are needed to evaluate for any advantage of using non absorbable tackers during laparoscopic repair of ventral hernia.

References

1.
Shah P, Shaikh S, Panchbhai S. Prevalence of anterior abdominal wall hernia and its associated factors. International Journal of Anatomy, Radiology and Surgery. 2016;5(3):07-10.
2.
Tulloh B, Nixon SJ. Abdominal wall, hernia and umbilicus. In: Williams N, O’Connell PR, McCaskie A, editors. Bailey & Love’s short practice of surgery. 27th ed. Great Britain: CRC Press; 2018.
3.
Jaykar RD, Varudkar AS, Akamanchi AK. A clinical study of ventral hernia. Int Surg J. 2017;44(7):2326-29. [crossref]
4.
Singhal V, Szeto P, Vandermeer TJ, Cagir B. Ventral hernia repair: Outcome changes with long-term follow-up. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2012;16(3):373-79. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Bedi AP, Bhatti T, Amin A, Zuberi J. Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair. J Minim Access Surg. 2007;3(3):83. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Wright BE, Niskanen BD, Peterson DJ, Ney AL. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: are there comparative advantages over traditional methods of repair? The American Surgeon. 2002;68(3):291-96.
7.
Rubby SA, Rangaswamy P, Sundar P. A prospective study comparing laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair. Int Surg J. 2017;4(1):01-07. [crossref]
8.
Demria EJ, Moss JM, Sungerman HJ. Laparoscopic intraperitoneal ePTFE prosthetic patch repair of ventral hernia: Prospective comparison to open prefascial polypropylene mesh repair. Surgical Endosc. 2000;14(4):326-29. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Wassenaar E, Schoenmaeckers E, Raymakers J, Van Der Palen J, Rakic S. Mesh fixation method and pain and quality of life after laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair: A randomised trial of three fixation techniques. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(6):1296-302. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, Fabian M, Ferzli GS, Fortelny RH, et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS) part 1. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(1):2-29. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Lepere M, Benchetrit S, Bertrand JC, Chalbet JY, Combier JP, Detruit B, et al. Laparoscopic resorbable mesh fixation. Assessment of an innovative disposable instrument delivering resorbable fixation devices: I-Clip TM. Final results of a prospective multicentre clinical trial. Hernia. 2008;12(2):177-83. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Bangash A, Khan N. Fixation in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: Suture versus tackers. Journal of the Scientific Society. 2013;40(2):84-89. [crossref]
13.
Beldi G, Wagner M, Bruegger LE, Kurmann A, Candinas D. Mesh shrinkage and pain in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: A randomised clinical trial comparing suture versus tacker mesh fixation. Surgical Endoscopy. 2011;25(3):749-55. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Silecchia G, Cavallaro G, Raparelli L, Olmi S, Baldazzi G, Campanile FC. Titanium versus absorbable tackers comparative study (TACS): A multicenter, non inferiority prospective evaluation during laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernia: Study protocol for randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16(1):249. Doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0779-x. PMID: 26037907; PMCID: PMC4460685. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Bansal VK, Asuri K, Panaiyadiyan S, Kumar S, Subramaniam R, Ramachandran R, et al. Comparison of absorbable versus nonabsorbable tackers in terms of long-term outcomes, chronic pain, and quality of life after laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: A randomised study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26(6):476-83. PMID:27846175. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Klimek L, Bergmann KC, Biedermann T, Bousquet J, Hellings P, Jung K, et al. Visual analogue scales (VAS): Measuring instruments for the documentation of symptoms and therapy monitoring in cases of allergic rhinitis in everyday health care. Allergo Journal International. 2017;26(1):16-24. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Colak E, Ozlem N, Kucuk GO, Aktimur R, Kesmer S, Yildirim K. Prospective randomised trial of mesh fixation with absorbable versus non absorbable tackerer in laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;102(5):541-47.
18.
Vallabhbhai DS, Saxena K, Gupta N, Singh S, Shivam S, Makkar GS, et al. A comparative study of mesh fixation by absorbable versus non absorbable tackers in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. IJSR. 2018;7(2):05-08.
19.
Khan RM, Bughio M, Ali B, Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S. Absorbable versus non absorbable tackers for mesh fixation in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Surgery. 2018;53:184-92. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Prakash P, Wijerathne S, Salgaonkar HP, Lomanto D. The efficacy of absorbable versus non absorbable fixation in laparoscopic totally extra peritoneal repair of large inguinal hernias. Asian Journal of Surgery. 2019;42(12):995-1000. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Smith AM, Faulkner JD, Chase N, Eckhauser FE, Hope WW. The effect of tack fixation methods on outcomes in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2021;31(7):779-82. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Christoffersen MW, Brandt E, Helgstrand F, Westen M, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, et al. Recurrence rate after absorbable tacker fixation of mesh in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2015;102(5):541-47. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
Harslof SS, Wara P, Friis-Andersen H. Fixation devices in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: A review. Surg Technol Int. 2014;24:203-13.

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/50481.16103

Date of Submission: May 22, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Oct 29, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Jan 27, 2022
Date of Publishing: Mar 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 24, 2021
• Manual Googling: Jan 25, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Feb 12, 2022 (20%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com