2 resultados para femoral vein

em Scientific Open-access Literature Archive and Repository


Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Background and aim. It has been reported that femoral hernias are rather common after a previous repair of inguinal hernia. We herein present a modified patch repair technique for large femoral hernias that develop after a Lichtenstein operation for ipsilateral inguinal hernia. Patients and methods. The modified technique for femoral hernia was applied to three patients who had a Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. All patients were male. Hernia sac is dissected completely and sent back into to the preperitoneal space. Special attention should be given to the prevascular component of the sac. It is dissected as deep as possible into the preperitoneal space over the femoral vein. The defect is quite wide in this particular type of femoral hernia following Lichtenstein repair. A prosthetic patch that matches the defect is prepared. The medial edge of the mesh is configured to correspond to the pubic corner and lacunar ligament. The lateral margin of the patch is cut to create several petals for inverting the mesh above and medial to the femoral vein to prevent prevascular herniation. The mesh is secured to inguinal ligament, ilioinguinal tract, lacunar ligament, and Cooper ligament. Few sutures are put on the pubic corner and lacunar ligament. Results. One patient was discharged after two hours, other two stayed overnight. Readmission because of seroma development was recorded in two cases where standard polypropylene meshes were used. No complication was observed in the other patient who received lightweight meshes. No early recurrences were recorded after 4, 9, and 30 months. Conclusion. Femoral recurrence after previous inguinal hernia repair seems to be a specific entity. It has a prevascular component and the hernia defect can be much larger than that of a primary femoral hernia. A patch repair with infra-inguinal approach can be a valuable alternative with low complication rate.

Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The present study was aimed at assessing the experience of a single referral center with recurrent varicose veins of the legs (RVL) over the period 1993-2008. Among a total of 846 procedures for Leg Varices (LV), 74 procedures were for RVL (8.7%). The causes of recurrence were classified as classic: insufficient crossectomy (13); incompetent perforating veins (13); reticular phlebectasia (22); small saphenous vein insufficiency (9); accessory saphenous veins (4); and particular: post-hemodynamic treatment (5); incomplete stripping (1); Sapheno-Femoral Junction (SFJ) vascularization (5); post-thermal ablation (2). For the “classic” RVL the treatment consisted essentially of completing the previous treatment, both if the problem was linked to an insufficient earlier treatment and if it was due to a later onset. The most common cause in our series was reticular phlebectasia; when the simple sclerosing injections are not sufficient, this was treated by phlebectomy according to Mueller. The “particular” cases classified as 1, 2 and 4 were also treated by completing the traditional stripping procedure (+ crossectomy if this had not been done previously), considered to be the gold standard. In the presence of a SFJ neo-vascularization, with or without cavernoma, approximately 5 cm of femoral vein were explored, the afferent vessels ligated and, if cavernoma was present, it was removed. Although inguinal neo-angiogenesis is a possible mechanism, some doubt can be raised as to its importance as a primary factor in causing recurrent varicose veins, rather than their being due to a preexisting vein left in situ because it was ignored, regarded as insignificant, or poorly evident. In conclusion, we stress that LV is a progressive disease, so the treatment is unlikely to be confined to a single procedure. It is important to plan adequate monitoring during follow-up, and to be ready to reoperate when new problems present that, if left, could lead the patient to doubt the validity and efficacy of the original treatment.