| 1. |
- Beard, Jessica H., et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes After Inguinal Hernia Repair With Mesh Performed by Medical Doctors and Surgeons in Ghana
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JAMA Surgery. - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 2168-6254 .- 2168-6262. ; 154:9, s. 853-859
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Key PointsQuestionWhat are the outcomes after mesh inguinal hernia repair performed by medical doctors compared with surgeons in Ghana? FindingsIn this cohort study of 242 men with primary reducible inguinal hernia, there was no significant difference in hernia recurrence at 1 year after inguinal hernia repair with mesh performed by medical doctors compared with surgeons (0.9% vs 2.8%). MeaningThis study shows that medical doctors can be trained to perform inguinal hernia repair with mesh in men with good results in a low-resource setting and appears to support surgical task sharing to combat the global burden of hernia disease. ImportanceInguinal hernia is the most common general surgical condition in the world. Although task sharing of surgical care with nonsurgeons represents one method to increase access to essential surgery, the safety and outcomes of this strategy are not well described for hernia repair. ObjectiveTo compare outcomes after inguinal hernia repair with mesh performed by medical doctors and surgeons in Ghana. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective cohort study was conducted from February 15, 2017, to September 17, 2018, at the Volta Regional Hospital in Ho, Ghana. Following successful completion of a training course, 3 medical doctors and 2 surgeons performed inguinal hernia repair with mesh according to the Lichtenstein technique on 242 men with primary, reducible inguinal hernia. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was hernia recurrence at 1 year. The noninferiority limit was set at 5 percentage points. Secondary end points included postoperative complications at 2 weeks and patient satisfaction, pain, and self-assessed health status at 1 year. ResultsTwo-hundred forty-two patients were included; 119 men underwent operations performed by medical doctors and 123 men underwent operations performed by surgeons. Preoperative patient characteristics were similar in both groups. Two-hundred thirty-seven patients (97.9%) were seen at follow-up at 2 weeks, and 223 patients (92.1%) were seen at follow-up at 1 year. The absolute difference in recurrence rate between the medical doctor group (1 [0.9%]) and the surgeon group (3 [2.8%]) was -1.9 (1-tailed 95% CI, -4.8; Pamp;lt;.001), demonstrating noninferiority of the medical doctors. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications (34 [29.1%] vs 29 [24.2%]), patient satisfaction (112 [98.2%] vs 108 [99.1%]), severe chronic pain (1 [0.9%] vs 4 [3.7%]), or self-assessed health (85.9 vs 83.7 of 100) for medical doctors and surgeons. Conclusions and RelevanceThis study shows that medical doctors can be trained to perform elective inguinal hernia repair with mesh in men with good results and high patient satisfaction in a low-resource setting. This finding supports surgical task sharing to combat the global burden of hernia disease. This cohort study compares the outcomes associated with inguinal hernia repair performed by medical doctors vs surgeons in Ghana.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Löfgren, Jenny, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost-effectiveness of groin hernia repair from a randomized clinical trial comparing commercial versus low-cost mesh in a low-income country
- 2017
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Surgery. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0007-1323 .- 1365-2168. ; 104:6, s. 695-703
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundOver 200 million people worldwide live with groin hernia and 20 million are operated on each year. In resource-scarce settings, the superior surgical technique using a synthetic mesh is not affordable. A low-cost alternative is needed. The objective of this study was to calculate and compare costs and cost-effectiveness of inguinal hernia mesh repair using a low-cost versus a commercial mesh in a rural setting in Uganda. MethodsThis is a cost-effectiveness analysis of a double-blinded RCT comparing outcomes from groin hernia mesh repair using a low-cost mesh and a commercially available mesh. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in US dollars (with euros in parentheses, exchange rate 30 December 2016) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. ResultsThe cost difference resulting from the choice of mesh was $1247 (Euro1181). In the low-cost mesh group, the cost per DALY averted and QALY gained were $168 (Euro159) and $76 (Euro72) respectively. The corresponding costs were $582 (Euro551) and $333 (Euro315) in the commercial mesh group. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken including cost variations and different health outcome scenarios. The maximum costs per DALY averted and QALY gained were $1484 (Euro1405) and $847 (Euro802) respectively. ConclusionRepair using both meshes was highly cost-effective in the study setting. A potential cost reduction of over $120 (nearly Euro120) per operation with use of the low-cost mesh is important if the mesh technique is to be made available to the many millions of patients in countries with limited resources. Trial registration number: ISRCTN20596933 (). Mosquito mesh is cost-efficient
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Ashley, Thomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes After Elective Inguinal Hernia Repair Performed by Associate Clinicians vs Medical Doctors in Sierra Leone A Randomized Clinical Trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: JAMA Network Open. - : American Medical Association. - 2574-3805. ; 4:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE Task sharing of surgical duties with medical doctors (MDs) without formal surgical training and associate clinicians (ACs; health care workers corresponding to an educational level between that of a nurse and an MD) is practiced to provide surgical services to people in low-resource settings. The safety and effectiveness of this has not been fully evaluated through a randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE To determine whether task sharing with MDs and ACs is safe and effective in mesh hernia repair in Sierra Leone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This single-blind, noninferiority randomized clinical trial included adult, healthy men with primary inguinal hernia randomized to receiving surgical treatment from an MD or an AC. In Sierra Leone, ACs practicing surgery have received 2 years of surgical training and completed a 1-year internship. The study was conducted between October 2017 and February 2019. Patients were followed up at 2 weeks and 1 year after operations. Observers were blinded to the study arm of the patients. The study was carried out in a first-level hospital in rural Sierra Leone. Data were analyzed from March to June 2019. INTERVENTIONS All patients received an open mesh inguinal hernia repair under local anesthesia. The control group underwent operations performed by MDs, and the intervention group underwent operations performed by ACs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was hernia recurrence at 1 year. Outcomes were assessed by blinded observers at 2 weeks and 1 year after operations. RESULTS A total of 230 patients were recruited (mean [SD] age, 43.0 [13.5] years), and all but 1 patient underwent inguinal hernia repair between October 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018, performed by 5 MDs and 6 ACs. A total of 114 patients were operated on by MDs, and 115 patients were operated on by ACs. There were no crossovers between the study arms. The follow-up rate was 100% at 2 weeks and 94.1% at 1 year. At 1 year, hernia recurrence occurred in 7 patients (6.9%) operated on by MDs and 1 patient (0.9%) operated on by ACs (absolute difference, -6.0 [95% CI, -11.2 to 0.7] percentage points; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings demonstrate that task sharing of elective mesh inguinal hernia repair with ACs was safe and effective. The task sharing debate should progress to focus on optimizing surgical training programs for nonsurgeons and building capacity for elective surgical care in low- and middle-income countries.
|
|
| 8. |
- Ashley, Thomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Standardised Competency-Based Training of Medical Doctors and Associate Clinicians in Inguinal Repair with Mesh in Sierra Leone
- 2023
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - : SPRINGER. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 47:10, s. 2330-2337
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IntroductionIn low-income settings, there is a high unmet need for hernia surgery, and most procedures are performed with tissue repair techniques. In preparation for a randomized clinical trial, medical doctors and associate clinicians received a short-course competency-based training on inguinal hernia repair with mesh under local anaesthesia. The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility, safety and effectiveness of the training.MethodsAll trainees received a one-day theoretical module on mesh hernia repair under local anaesthesia followed by hands-on training. Performance was assessed using the American College of Surgeons Groin Hernia Operative Performance Rating System. Patients were followed up two weeks and one year after surgery. Outcomes of the patients operated on during the training trial were compared to the 229 trial patients operated on after the training.ResultsDuring three surgical camps, seven medical doctors and six associate clinicians were trained. In total, 129 patients were operated on as part of the training. Of the 13 trainees, 11 reached proficiency. Patients in the training group had more wound infections after two weeks (8.5% versus 3.1%; p = 0.041). There was no difference in recurrence and mortality after one year, and none of the deaths were attributed to the surgery.Discussion and conclusionMesh repair is the international standard for inguinal hernia repair worldwide. Nevertheless, this is not widely accessible in low-income settings. This study has demonstrated that short-course intensive hands-on training of MDs and ACs in mesh hernia repair is effective and safe.Trial Registration: International Clinical Trial Registry ISRCTN63478884.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
