Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 41 items for

  • Author or Editor: György Horváth x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

Fejezetek a képzőművészeti Alap történetéből: A Tavaszi Tárlat és a három „T” a dokumentumok tükrében

I. remény, reformkísérlet, avagy mi baj volt a Tavaszi Tárlattal?

Chapters in the history of the Fine Arts Fund: The Spring exhibition and the three “T”-s as reflected in the documents

I. Hope, attempt at reforms, or what was wrong with the spring exhibition?
Művészettörténeti Értesítő
György Horváth

In the first half of the fifties almost every year there was a spring exhibition in Budapest. It was usually open to those who had no chance to show their works in the great state exhibitions in the previous years and thus the Ministry of Popular Education had not purchase any from them. There was a strict jury to select from the submitted works and to recommend what to exhibit and what to buy.

The Spring Exhibition opened on 20 April 1957 in all rooms of the Kunsthalle was different. The exhibits were not selected by a state-delegated jury but by four juries delegated by the artists themselves and everyone was free to submit their painting, sculpture, print to any of the four. The selection was also widely different from the ‘socialist realist’ works of the earlier spring exhibitions, representing a rich assortment of styles from naturalist to abstract and surrealist. The Greek sculptor Agamemnon Macris, who immigrated to Hungary and was immediately accepted and acknowledged by the art community, was entrusted with the organization of the exhibition; he arranged the selection by stylistic trends, each given a room of its own.

The Spring Exhibition was received by a meticulously organized volley of criticism. It was reviled by the dailies and – under the pretext of a debate – the newly launched literary weekly, Élet és Irodalom [Life and Literature] carried a series of disparaging articles. It was their coordinated opinion that under the motto “let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools compete” the Spring Exhibition was a misinterpreted copy of the ongoing Chinese cultural campaign and, in short, it was petty bourgeois anarchy incarnate. The experience of a free choice of style, unrestricted self-presentation and the intensive attack of abuse left a deep imprint on the memory of the artists. The same applies to art historical writing.

The author is a researcher of the history of the Fine Arts (from 1968 Arts) Fund. In the four decades of socialism this institution was in charge of organizing the subsistence of artists: the companies under its aegis did everything from casting sculptures to art trade, from grounding canvas to printing picture-postcards, and from the income the fund gave the artists old-age pension, medical care, sick pay and occasional allowances, and even interest-free loans. Several documents have been found scattered among the files of the Federation of Hungarian Artists and the Ministry of Culture found in the National Archives, which refer to the 1957 Exhibition. Excerpts are given from them in the Appendix. The picture that they help reproduce provides explanation to the nervousness with which the political leadership that rose to power with the support of the intervening Soviet troops after the 1956 revolution responded to the Spring Exhibition.

The documents reveal: the Spring Exhibition was not only an attempt to restore the artists’ intellectual autonomy, but also – and most importantly – to regain their financial independence. The four juries were also the cores of four possible artists’ groups, and the members of the Artists’ Federation and the Arts Fund would have been rallied in the “salons” they represented. Each of these salons would have owned a company which they hoped to set up on the material and personal resources of the art trading company of the Fund called Képcsarnok, and of the creative communities active with permission since the autumn of 1953.

Splitting up Képcsarnok into smaller companies was originally proposed by the Arts Fund director and the leaders of the art division of the Ministry of Education in summer 1956 and not by the Federation. It was hoped that when a single company was replaced by several, and each management included a few prominent artists, then the grumbling painters and graphic artists protesting against the hegemony of the only art trading company’s only jury and the only top leader of the jury could be pacified. The director’s plan was discussed by the artists several times in summer and autumn, but then the revolution broke out on the 23rd, veering the story into a new direction.

The Executive Committee formed from the Revolutionary Committee of the Federation of Artists and the ministerial commissioner Agamemnon Macris who headed the Federation put the plan in the focus of the reform of the Federation they jointly worked out. The four economic units called “salons” converted from the planned four small companies would have been held together by a new independent Artists’ Federation Association shedding the patronage of the state. The membership of the “salons”, with their leadership of prominent artists and juries answerable to them, and with the Arts Fund to be put under their control, wished to take their own destiny in hand, eliminating the so-far dictating bureaucratic apparatus: the party centre and the ministry. The Spring Exhibition would have been the debut of this reorganized Association and the enterprises that would have ensured its financial autonomy.

No doubt about it, this could not be put up with either by the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party or the government officials. The Kádárian leadership driven by the logic of the violent recapture of power refused to yield the safest means of control: the material resources and supervision of the access to them. Consequently, it deployed all possible means to checkmate the artists’ plan. In the forums of publicity the pluralism of the Spring Exhibition was vehemently attacked, while the office took “administrative” measures to thwart the working of the Association trying to reorganize itself in a new spirit and on new grounds. It was therefore in vain for Macris to visit György Aczél, the newly appointed deputy cultural minister to tell him his assessment of the situation and to advise on it, for no one listened to him. The working of the Association was suspected, the reform plans discarded and they tried to erase even the memory of the Spring Exhibition.

Restricted access

Fejezetek a Képzőművészeti Alap történetéből: a Tavaszi Tárlat és a „három T” a dokumentumok tükrében

II. Rövid séta a „három T” és az „önköltséges kiállítások” körül

Chapters in the history of the fine arts fund: The spring exhibition and “the three T”-s as reflected in the documents

II. A short walk around the “three T’s” and the “self-paid exhibitions”
Művészettörténeti Értesítő
György Horváth

Artists’ recollections of the Kádárist period of Hungarian socialism as well as the analyses of the cultural policy of the one-party state include as a permanent motif the “three T’s” for the initial letter of the Hungarian words for banning, toleration and support (tiltás, tűrés, támogatás) designed in theory for works and in practice applied partly to works and partly to artists. The reminiscing artists and the analysts are more or less at one declaring that “three T’s” were “created” by György Aczél to describe the working of the art policy he dictated between 1957 and 1985.

The matter is however far more complicated. First, the control of art policy was only partly in Aczél’s hand at the beginning of the period, and at that time there was no trace of the “three T’s”, but at most two were experienced: banning and support. Secondly, Aczél’s art policy was not solely his: the demarcation of his scope always fundamentally depended on the actual high political circumstances and on the party leaders who tried to hold them in sway.

In the years of retaliation after the 1956 revolution between 1957 and 1962 the HSWP addressed all social groups including of course the artists from the position of power. For Aczél, it would have been in vain to add anything to the memorandum “on the situation of our literature” discussed by the party PC on August 6, 1957 as much as it was in vain to include that “reserving the right of criticism, the party and the government (…) allow publicity to any non-realist trend that is not hostile to the people’s democracy” in the released resolution – that was not an indication of a “tolerant” art policy. This is massively proven by the “guiding principles” of the HSWP’s “cultural policy” announced in the summer of 1958 which declared that “the party will not put up with the fact that the inferior formalist products of bourgeois decadence (…) should pollute the taste of our people without inhibitions.” Consequently, the “non-realist” trends – though not hostile “to the people’s democracy” did not have a say in literature or any other genre, including fine arts. Only the Ministry of Culture could have allowed them some scope, for the key to all publicity – in case of fine arts, the preliminary permission process for exhibitions – got into the hands of the art department of the ministry from autumn ’57, but they had no intention to give room to artists creating abstract, surrealist, etc. works qualified as “anti-humanist”.

In the early sixties the grip of the dictatorship was loosened. In his closing address at the 8th congress of the HSWP János Kádár announced the slogan of the new times: “Those who are not against us are with us.” In this relaxed atmosphere the ministry in charge of artistic matters was ready to make concessions. Small concessions, of course: they deemed it sufficient to give permission for four exhibitions a year in the smallest exhibiting room of Budapest for the representatives of “artistic trends alien to our goals but not hostile in its contents”, provided that they were willing and able to cover all costs of the exhibitions from their pockets. The plan was thrashed out in detail. György Aczél consulted personally with the head of the cultural subsdivision of the HSWP László Szecsődi before the memorandum to be submitted to the party’s Committee of Agitation and Propaganda. Yet the case did not reach the committee and in 1963 it was removed from the agenda. Notably because, in late 1962, the Soviet political leadership launched a campaign against all modern styles – not for the first or the last time — which the Hungarian decision-makers – who had enough trouble with the architects’ viewpoint that they would not see any “thematic works” in their buildings — could not disregard.

The case of the “self-paid exhibitions” came up again around the middle of the decade when preparations for the “new economic mechanism” to be launched in 1968 required the differentiation of the tools of a cultural policy that until then only knew of support and banning and the increased flexibility of allocating financial support, so they inserted the category of “tolerable” or “permissible” works between the supported and banned ones concerning public showing. Then on May 4, 1967 the ministry ordered the Lectorate of Fine and Applied Arts to insert in the schedule of exhibitions “self-paid” and “semi-self-paid” showings, and instructed the Kunsthalle to stage them in the Fényes Adolf gallery. The cost to be paid was 5000 and 2500 HUF, respectively. The first such exhibitions were opened in 1968.

Not many such showings took place. There was no point. From the early sixties nearly all forbidden fruits — works by the classic and new generations of Hungarian avant-garde — were accessible at first in private homes, later in university clubs, culture houses, the Club of Young Artists, from 1963 in the most important venue, the King St Stephen Museum in Székesfehérvár and later in the Janus Pannonius Museum in Pécs.

The paper whose preliminary writing was published in Művészettörténeti Értesítő 2015/2 presents the archival sources of the above process in the appendix.

Restricted access

Adalékok Kondor Béla sors-történetéhez

Addenda to the Life-Story of Béla Kondor

Művészettörténeti Értesítő
György Horváth

In the course of my research in archives – in search of documents about the history of the Art Foundation of the People’s Republic (from 1968 Art Fund) – while leafing through the sea of files in the National Archives of Hungary (MNL OL) year after year, I came across so-far unknown documents on the life and fate of Béla Kondor which had been overlooked by the special literature so far.

Some reflected the character of the period from summer of 1956 to spring 1957, more precisely to the opening of the Spring Exhibition. In that spring, after relieving Rákosi of his office, the HWP (Hungarian Workers’ Party, Hun. MDP) cared less for “providing guidance for the arts”, as they were preoccupied with other, more troublesome problems. In the winter/spring after the revolution started on 23 October and crushed on 4 November the echelon of the HSWP (Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party, Hun. MSzMP) had not decided yet whether to strike a league with extreme leftist artistic groups or to pay heed to Memos Makris (Hun. Makrisz Agamemnon), the ministerial commissioner designing the reform of the artists’ association and organizing the Spring Exhibition and to leave the artists – so-far forced into the strait-jacket of socialist realism – alone. I found some documents which shed bright light on the narrow-mindedness of the dogmatic artistic policy trying to bend the artists toward its goals now with the whip, now with milk cake.

I start the series of recovered documents with a ministerial file dated summer 1956 on the decision to purchase Kondor’s diploma work (the Dózsa cycle). The next piece of good news is a record of the committee meeting in February 1957 awarding Kondor a Derkovits scholarship. This is followed by ministerial letters – mirrors of the new artistic policy – by a changed, truly partyist scholarship committee which apparently revel in lecturing talented Kondor who was not willing to give up his sovereignty, so his works were often refused to be bought on state funds for museums.

In addition to whip-lashing documents, I also present a few which offered some milk cake: a letter inviting him to a book illustrating competition called by the Petőfi Literary Museum and one commissioning him to make the sheets on the Heves county part of a “liberation album”.

Next, I put forth a group of illumining documents – long known but never published in details: the files revealing the story of the large panels designed for the walls of the “Uranium city” kindergarten in Pécs and those revealing the preparations for the exhibition in Fényes Adolf gallery in 1960 and the causes of the concurrent tensions – including texts on decisions to hinder the publication of Lajos Németh’s catalogue introduction.

The last group includes futile efforts by architects to get Kondor commissions for murals. They give information on three possible works. Another for Pécs again (this time with Tibor Csernus), for works for a “men’s hostel” and on the failure of the possibility. The other is about works for Kecskemét’s Aranyhomok Hotel, another failure. The third is about a glass window competition for a new modern hotel to be built in Salgótarján, to which Kondor was also invited, but the jury did not find his work satisfactory in spite of the fact that the officials representing the city’s “party and council” organs, and the powerful head of the county and town, the president of the county committee of the HSWP all were in favour of commissioning him.

Mind you, the architects’ efforts to provide the handful of modern artists with orders for “abstract” works caused headache for the masterminds of controlled art policy, too. On the one hand, they also tried to get rid of the rigidity of the ideologically dogmatic period in line with “who is not against us, is with us”, the motto spreading with political détente, and to give room to these genres qualified as “decoration”. On the other hand, they did not want to give up the figurative works of socialist contents, which the architects wanted to keep away from their modern buildings. A compromise was born: Cultural Affairs and the Art Fund remained supporters of figurative works, and the “decorative” modern murals, mosaics and sculptures were allowed inside the buildings at the cost of the builders.

Apart from architects, naturally there were other spokesmen in favour of Kondor (and Csernus and the rest of the shelved artists). In an essay in Új Irás in summer 1961 Lajos Németh simply branded it a waste to deprive Kondor of all channels except book illustration, while anonymous colleagues of the National Gallery guided an American curator to him who organized an exhibition of Kondor’s graphic works he had packed into his suitcase in the Museum of Modern Art in Miami.

From the early 1963 – as the rest of the explored documents reveal – better times began in Hungarian internal and cultural politics, hence in Béla Kondor’s life, too. The beginning is marked by a – still “exclusive” – exhibition he could hold in the Young Artists’ Studio in January, followed by a long propitiatory article urging for publicity for Kondor by a young journalist of Magyar Nemzet, Attila Kristóf. Then, in December Kondor became the Grand Prix winner of the second Graphic Biennial of Miskolc.

From then on, the documents are no longer about incomprehensible prohibitions or at time self-satisfying wickedness, but about exhibitions (the first in King Stephen Museum, Székesfehérvár), prizes (including the Munkácsy Prize in April 1965), purchases, the marvellous panel for the Grand Hotel on Margaret Island, the preparations for the Venice Biennale of 1968, the exhibition in Art Hall/Műcsarnok in 1970 and its success, and Kondor’s second Munkácsy Prize.

Finally, I chanced upon a group of startling and sofar wholly unknown notes which reveals that Béla Kondor was being among the nominees for the 1973 Kossuth Prize. News of his death on 12 December 1972, documents about the museum deposition of his posthumous works and the above group of files close the account of his life.

I wrote a detailed study to accompany the documents. My intention was not to explain them – as they speak for themselves – but to insert them in the life-story of Kondor, trying to find out which and how, to what extent contributed to the veering of his life-course and to possibilities of publicity for his works. I obviously included several further facts, partly in the main body of the text, and partly in footnotes. Without presenting them here, let me just pick one or two.

Events around the 1960 exhibition kindled the attention not only of the deputy minister of culture György Aczél, but also of the Ministry of the Interior: as Anikó B. Nagy dug out, they asked for an agent’s report on who Kondor was, what role he was playing among young writers, architects, artists, the circle around Vigilia and the intellectuals in general. Also: what role did human cowardice play in banning the panels for the Pécs kindergarten, and how wicked it was – with regulations cited – to ask back the advance money from an artist already hardly making a living with the termination of the Der ko vits scholarship. Again: what turn did modern Hungarian architecture undergo in the early sixties to dare and challenge the still prevalent culture political red tape? It was also a special experience to track down and describe the preparations for the Hungarian exhibition of the Venice Biennial of 1968 and to see how much caution and manoeuvring was needed even in those milder years to get permission for Béla Kondor (in the company of Tibor Vilt and Ignác Kokas) to feature in the pavilion. Finally, it was informative to follow the routes of Kondor’s estate as state acquisitions and museum deposits after his death which foiled his Kossuth Prize.

Restricted access

Memristors are not market ready devices yet, however their future applications can be tested with electric circuit simulation software on application oriented models. This paper proposes a simulation model for memristors that will possibly used in electrical engineering. Especially the unwanted saturation effect of the devices resulted by the direct current component possibly superimposed to the alternating operational current is investigated in this paper through simulation sessions.

Restricted access

In the last decade considerable progress was achieved in the theory of tree shakers used for fruit harvesting. New calculation methods were developed including the vibrating soil mass which enabled the calculation of effective soil masses on a strictly physical basis. However, these earlier investigations did not treat with the effect of stroke frequency. In these investigations, first of all, the friction behavior of the soil mass is discussed as a function of stroke frequency. It turned out that the decrease and shifting of the soil deformation waves as a function of distance measured from the tree trunk are the main sources of an intensive friction between the neighbouring soil layers. As a consequence, the logarithmic decrement (and not the damping coefficient) of the soil will be more or less constant as a function of stroke frequency, at least in the investigated frequency range. At lower attachment heights the soil friction losses dominate independently on stroke frequency. The virtual spring constant of the soil body is also frequency dependent. Due to the presence of combined frictional and viscous losses, the energy method seems to be the best one to analyze the effect of stroke frequency on the various operational parameters.

Restricted access

Bevezetés: A gyulladásos bélbetegségek közé tartozó Crohn-betegség a tápcsatorna bármely szakaszát érintő kórkép. Célkitűzés: A szerzők retrospektív vizsgálatukban a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Sebészeti Klinikáján 2005. január 1. és 2012. október 31. közötti időszakban Crohn-betegség miatt laparoszkópos és nyitott hasi műtéten átesett betegek kezelési eredményeinek összehasonlítását tűzték ki célul. Módszer: A betegeket a műtéti típusok szerint csoportosították, programozottan 103 betegen 137 esetben nyitott műtétet, 30 betegen 30 esetben laparoszkópos beavatkozást végeztek. 22 betegnél 24 primer akut műtét történt. Eredmények: A laparoszkópos műtéten átesett betegek átlagéletkora szignifikánsan alacsonyabb (p = 0,042) volt. A laparoszkópos ileocaecalis reszekciók szignifkánsan rövidebbnek bizonyultak mint a nyitott műtétek (p = 0,033). A műtéti időtartamok összehasonlítása során szignifikáns különbséget (p = 0,033) az ileocaecalis reszekcióknál találtak. A laparoszkópos műtéten átesett betegek a nyitott hasi műtéten átesett betegekhez képest szignifikánsan rövidebb időt töltöttek a sebészeti osztályon (p = 0,025) és az intenzív osztályon (p < 0,001), valamint a bélpasszázs is hamarabb indult meg. Következtetések: A laparoszkópos műtétek esetében kisebb műtéti és kozmetikai traumával, rövidebb kórházi tartózkodással, nem nagyobb szövődmény- és morbiditási rátával és bizonyos esetekben rövidebb műtéti idővel számolhatunk. Ugyanakkor magasabb műtéti költségeket és képzettebb személyzeti feltételeket igényelnek. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(1), 24–29.

Restricted access

Kedvezőbb műtéti eredmények „onlay” hálóval, mint „sublay” helyzetben beültetettel

Varrattal, illetve hálóbeültetéssel történő hasfal-rekonstrukció prospektív, randomizált, multicentrikus vizsgálata – ötéves utánkövetés eredményei

Magyar Sebészet
György Wéber
József Baracs
, and
Örs Péter Horváth


Bevezetés: A hasfal rekonstrukciójára számos műtéti megoldás ismert, az eredmények azonban meglehetősen szerények és ellentmondásosak. Vizsgálatunk célja a hasfali sérvek varrattal, illetve hálóbeültetéssel végzett műtéti kezelésének valamint az onlay, illetve sublay helyzetben beültetett hálók műtéti eredményeinek összehasonlítása. Anyag és módszerek: A 2002-ben kezdődött multicentrikus, prospektív, randomizált vizsgálatban az ország 20 sebészeti osztályán (lásd Függelék) 953 beteg hasfali rekonstrukcióját végeztük el. A betegeket, a sérv nagysága szerint két csoportba osztottuk: A csoport (n = 494): a sérvkapu nagysága 5–25 cm2 (kis sérv) és B csoport (n = 459): a sérvkapu nagyobb, mint 25 cm2 (nagy sérv). A randomizálásnak megfelelően az A csoportban a hasfal-rekonstrukció varrattal (n = 247), illetve hálóbeültetéssel (sublay n = 247) történt. A 25 cm2-nél nagyobb sérvek esetében (B csoport) hálóbeültetés történt, random módon sublay (n = 235), illetve onlay technikával (n = 224). Az utánkövetés öt évig tartott, és 2009 márciusában fejeződött be. Eredmények: Az ötéves utánkövetés során 219 beteget zártunk ki a vizsgálatból, így 734 beteg (a randomizált betegek 77%-a) adatait tudtuk elemezni. Az A csoport varrattal kezelt 184 betegénél 50 esetben (27%), míg a hálóval kezelt 180 betegénél 15 esetben (8%) találtunk recidív sérvet, a különbség szignifikáns (p < 0,001). A nagy sérvek eseté-ben (B csoport) a 189 sublay meshnél 38 esetben (20%), míg a 181 onlay meshnél 22 esetben (12%) találtunk recidív sérvet, a különbség ugyancsak szignifikáns (p < 0,05). Következtetések: A hálóbeültetés jobb, mint a varrattal történő hasfal-rekonstrukció. A 25 cm2-nél nagyobb sérvek esetében – a szakmai vélekedéssel ellentétben – az „onlay” hálóval szignifikánsan jobbak a műtéti eredmények, mint a „sublay” helyzetben beültetett hálóval.

A randomizált vizsgálat ID száma NCT01018524 (

Restricted access

A vérvizelés okai gyermekkorban – a korszerű diagnosztika a kivizsgálás tükrében

Causes of hematuria in childhood – current diagnosis and management

Orvosi Hetilap
Orsolya Horváth
Attila József Szabó
Ildikó Várkonyi
, and
György Reusz

A vérvizelés hátterében a betegségek széles spektruma állhat gyermekkorban, az egyszerű és gyorsan gyógyuló húgyúti fertőzésektől a gyorsan progrediáló súlyos glomerulonephritisig, mely a vesefunkció gyors romlásához vezet. A vérvizelés kivizsgálása során ezért elsődleges célunk az orvosi szempontból jelentős esetek elkülönítése. A vérvizeléshez társuló fehérjevizelés, a magas vérnyomás vagy a beszűkült vesefunkció progresszív vesebetegségre hívja fel a figyelmet. Amennyiben a vérvizelés makroszkópos, vagy az egyéb klinikai tünetek jellegzetesek, a differenciáldiagnózis gyakran könnyű és egyértelmű. Komplikáltabb esetekben azonban további noninvazív vizsgálómódszerek lehetnek szükségesek, mint az ultrahangvizsgálat, a vörösvértestek morfológiai vizsgálata, kalciumürítés, egyéb vizeletkémiai paraméterek, illetve a vesefunkció és a fehérjevizelés mértékének meghatározása. A családi anamnézis részletes felvétele a vérvizelés örökletes okainak elkülönítésében segít. Tünetmentes vérvizelés esetén központokként változhat a vesebiopszia elvégzésének indikációja. A glomerularis betegségek felismerésének arányát jelentősen befolyásolja, hogy mely kritériumok teljesülése esetén végzünk vesebiopsziát. Összefoglaló közleményünkben a vérvizelés diagnosztikájának kihívásait mutatjuk be. Részletezzük a vérvizelés definícióját, a glomerularis és postglomerularis vérvizelés elkülönítésének lépéseit, áttekintjük a hátterükben álló leggyakoribb betegségeket, melyek vagy gyakoriságuk, vagy gyors lefolyásuk és rossz prognózisuk miatt kihívást jelentenek mindennapi gyermeknefrológiai orvosi gyakorlatunk során. Orv Hetil. 2024; 165(28): 1067–1078.

Open access

Immune cells synthesize, store and secrete hormones, the level of which changes in ALL. In previous experiments the level of histamine, serotonin and triiodothyronine (T3)was studied, while at present that of ACTH, insulin and epinephrine, using flow cytometric analysis for the determination of cell subsets and detection of hor-mone content. The measurements were done in children at the time of diagnosis. ACTH was significantly elevated in each T cell subsets (total T, Th, Tc, activated T), while B and NK cells were not touched. The alterations in the insulin content (decrease in Tc and activated T cells) were uncertain, and NK cells contained significantly less insulin. The disease did not influence the cells’ epinephrine content. There is not clear explanation for the importance of changes in the cells’ hormone content, however, it is discussed in the text.

Restricted access


A szerzők ismertetik a 2004-ben a Pécsi Tudományegyetem Sebészeti Klinikáján lágyéksérv miatt operált összes beteg hosszú távú utánkövetési eredményeit. Az értékelés során a feszülésmentes és a feszülés mellett végzett, nyitott herniotomiákat vetjük össze a betegek kérdőívre adott válasza alapján. Eredmények: Eredményeinket 155 beteg adatainak elemzése alapján közöljük. Recidívaarány hálóval (H) 3,4% (4/116), háló nélkül (HN) 12,8% (5/39). Teljesen panaszmentes a betegek 83 (97/116 – H), illetve 89%-a (35/39 – HN). Jelentős krónikus fájdalom 1,7% (2/116 – H), illetve 7,7% (3/39 – HN). Korai aktivitás elérése 34% (39/116 – H), illetve 29% (11/39 – HN). Következtetés: Vizsgálatunk igazolta, hogy Lichtenstein-műtét után alacsonyabb a recidíva, azonban a krónikus fájdalom, illetve az aktivitás visszanyerésének tekintetében vizsgálatunk nem talált lényeges különbséget a feszülésmentes és a feszülés mellett végzett, nyitott herniotomia között.

Restricted access