-
Odds for 2nd Hernia
Anyone with an IH, good luck! Once with one, the odds for a subsequent one on the other side (presumably negating cases of recurrence) are something like 30-50% in the first five years since first occurrence of one?
Whatever. Then doesn’t this mean that subsequent odds will differ for which side, right or left? Kaspa points out elsewhere that the left-sided IH lower rate of incidence is due to having the sigmoid colon as a protective against herniation. So would sufferers of right-sided IHs have a better outlook than people starting with a left-sided one?
We cannot assume that odds for right and left are equal. So when we see odds in general for 2nd occurrence, we probably must raise or lower the percentage rate according to left or right IH. Hell, I’ll try to lower the rate any best way!
And speaking of recurrence (after a surgically repaired IH), again, doesn’t which side matter much?
(Hell, I feel like IH talk becomes like going deeper and deeper into a dark hole. Nearly with each new info, IH becomes more complex. Never ending. Good thing I dismissed the idea of entering med school when I did!! 🙂 ]
-
2 Replies
-
Good point about the weakness of data, but that hasn’t stopped various medical writers (often, surgeons themselves) stating that once an IH, chances rise for a subsequent one (apart from recurrence of the same side). Moreover, it is not hard to find in the medical literature a distinction made about right-left having different chances of occurrence. If the two sides were structurally equal, then chance of occurrence might be a mute point. But as Kaspa pointed out, the left side seems to be structurally advantaged. If so, then it is highly likely the two sides will differ about frequency of occurrence.
As this related data comes into question, then you must be skeptical also about most other data in the IH field. For example various authors question the rates of recurrence claimed for the IH surgical methods. Follow-up of patients post-op has said to be problematic. Immediately we have questionable data, therefore. A can of worms emerges that could turn the field upside down.
I presume that a lot of the stats found come from clinical conjecture rather than scientific study, the latter being more preferred. In its absence, clinical conjecture might be the only thing we have. Weak as it might be, it can be a helpful starting point as long as we remain flexible in its use.
-
This data is not accurate.
We don’t know the real data.
We know from children there is a 15-20% chance of hernia on the other side. That’s a different hernia population than adults. also, left vs right has to do with male anatomy, so not applicable to females.There is a lot we don’t know. So i would not make conjectures based on weak data to begin with.
Log in to reply.