切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2018, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (02) : 120 -123. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2018.02.010

所属专题: 文献

论著

不同补片植入方法在腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的疗效
李进1,(), 张敏康1, 郭浩1, 张前进1, 孟庆良1, 田庆中1   
  1. 1. 221000 江苏省,徐州市中心医院肿瘤外科
  • 收稿日期:2017-05-20 出版日期:2018-04-18
  • 通信作者: 李进

Clinical study of different patch implantation in the treatment of inguinal hernia

Jin Li1,(), Minkang Zhang1, Hao Guo1, Qianjin Zhang1, Qinliang Meng1, Qinzhong Tian1   

  1. 1. Department of Oncology Surgery, Central Hospital of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu 221000, China
  • Received:2017-05-20 Published:2018-04-18
  • Corresponding author: Jin Li
  • About author:
    Corresponding auther: Li Jin, Email:
引用本文:

李进, 张敏康, 郭浩, 张前进, 孟庆良, 田庆中. 不同补片植入方法在腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的疗效[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(02): 120-123.

Jin Li, Minkang Zhang, Hao Guo, Qianjin Zhang, Qinliang Meng, Qinzhong Tian. Clinical study of different patch implantation in the treatment of inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2018, 12(02): 120-123.

目的

探讨腹腔镜下腹腔内补片植入(intraperitoneal onlay mesh,IPOM)与腹膜前间隙补片植入[腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair,TAPP)和腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术(laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal,TEP)]治疗腹股沟疝的临床效果。比较TAPP和TEP术式的治疗费用和卫生资源利用率。

方法

回顾性分析2014年6月至2015年12月,徐州市中心医院收治的153例腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术(laparascopic inguinal hernia repair,LIHR)患者的临床资料,其中IPOM 102例,TAPP 30例,TEP 21例。比较腹腔镜下IPOM与腹膜前间隙补片植入患者的基本信息与术后临床症状等资料。

结果

IPOM组和腹膜前间隙补片植入组慢性疼痛患者分别为18例和1例,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);IPOM组血清肿患者8例,腹膜前间隙补片植入组2例,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);2组患者在感觉障碍、术后感染、住院时间和复发率等方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组患者治疗后其血清基质金属蛋白酶2(matrix metalloproteinase,MMP)-2(97.55±10.26、98.34±11.06)、MMP-9(128.57±10.26、130.94±10.71)水平均有明显降低,与治疗前对比(201.51±14.61、203.61±16.84)、(198.64±12.64、199.07±11.57),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),组间对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。TAPP和TEP在检查费用、手术费用、药品费用、护理费用、间接成本和总成本上差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。TAPP和TEP治疗腹股沟疝的疗效相同,但TEP通过减少材料费用提高了资源利用率。

结论

腹腔镜下IPOM与腹膜前间隙补片植入都是治疗腹股沟疝的有效手术方式,腹膜前间隙补片植入术治疗效果优于腹腔镜下IPOM。

Objective

To investigate the clinical effect of laparoscopic intraperitoneal implantation (IPOM) and preperitoneal space implantation [laparoscopic transabdominal hernia repair (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal repair (TEP)] in the treatment of inguinal hernia. The treatment costs and health resource utilization were compared between TAPP and TEP.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on 153 patients with laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) who were treated in Central Hospital of Xuzhou City from June 2014 to December 2015. There were 102 patients undergoing intraperitoneal patch implantation, 30 cases of TAPP, and 21 cases of TEP. The basic information and postoperative clinical symptoms were compared between laparoscopic intraperitoneal patch implantation and preperitoneal space patch implantation.

Results

There were 18 cases and 1 case of chronic pain in laparoscopic intraperitoneal implantation group and preperitoneal space patch implantation group, respectively. And the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). 8 patients with seroma in laparoscopic intraperitoneal patch implantation group were significantly more than 2 patients in preperitoneal space patch implantation group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in sensory disturbance, postoperative infection, hospitalization time and recurrence rate between the two groups (P>0.05). The levels of serum MMP-2 and MMP-9 in the two groups were significantly lower than those before treatment (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in examination costs, operation costs, drug costs, nursing costs, indirect costs and total costs between TAPP and TEP (P>0.05). TAPP and TEP had same therapeutic effect in the treatment of inguinal hernia. TEP improved resource utilization by reducing the cost of materials.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic intraperitoneal patch implantation and preperitoneal space patch implantation are effective surgical methods for the treatment of inguinal hernia. The preperitoneal space patch implantation is superior to laparoscopic intraperitoneal patch implantation on clinical outcomes.

表1 2组患者基本资料比较(例)
表2 2组患者术后各项指标比较
表3 患者治疗前后血清MMP-2、MMP-9变化情况比较(±s
表4 TAPP与TEP各项指标比较值(元,±s
[1]
龚利鑫, 肖光辉. 改良IPOM方法在腹股沟疝中的应用[C]. 天水: 全国腹腔镜高级技术研讨会, 2008.
[2]
王恒武. 疝气无张力修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的临床分析[J]. 中国社区医师, 2015, 9(7): 83-83.
[3]
陆景锋,李华青,李健文, 等. 腹腔镜全腹膜外修补术治疗腹股沟疝1437例操作体会[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2015, 35(8): 870-872.
[4]
郭雄波,黄宗海,李强, 等. 腹腔镜改良IPOM法治疗腹股沟疝39例[J]. 中国现代普通外科进展, 2013, 16(8): 649-650.
[5]
Sitaramachandra AT. Polyvinylidene fluoride-coated polypropylene mesh for intraperitoneal onlay mesh(IPOM) repair of ventral and incisional herniae[J]. Br J Surg, 2015, 97(7): 1140-1145.
[6]
赵健,郭天康. 腹腔镜与开放式无张力疝修补术治疗成人复发性腹股沟疝疗效Meta分析[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2015, 16(1): 86-93.
[7]
刘玉华. 腹腔镜疝修补术(TEP)与开放式无张力疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的临床比较[J]. 中国医药指南, 2015, 15(8): 15-16.
[8]
孙刚,赵英男,李冬, 等. 腹股沟疝传统疝修补术、平片及疝环填充无张力疝修补术的临床研究[J]. 临床军医杂志, 2015, 43(4): 348-350.
[9]
Winny M, Maegel L, Grethe L, et al. Adhesion Prevention Efficacy of Composite Meshes Parietex®, Proceed® and 4DryField® PH Covered Polypropylene Meshes in an IPOM Rat Model[J]. Inter J Medl Sci, 2016, 13(12): 936-941.
[10]
李凯,许光中,王桐生, 等. 两种开放式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的比较研究[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2016, 10(1): 21-24.
[11]
李飞. 腹膜外腹腔镜疝气修补术与传统疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效比较[J]. 医药, 2016, 19(11): 128-128.
[12]
陶红光,宗华. 腹腔镜疝修补术与开放式无张力疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的疗效观察[J]. 中国当代医药, 2016, 23(5): 22-24.
[13]
Praveen RP, Ganesh MK, Senthilnathan P, et al. Concomitant laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair with other clean contaminated procedures-study of feasibility and safety[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2015, 25(1): 33-34.
[14]
王明刚. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前补片植入术治疗复发性腹股沟疝技术探讨[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2015, 35(11): 1172-1174.
[15]
戴国清. 完全腹膜外腹腔镜补片植入术治疗腹股沟复发疝临床疗效观察[J]. 临床和实验医学杂志, 2015, 15(3): 239-241.
[1] 李凯, 陈淋, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种U型记忆合金线在经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 15-15.
[2] 曹迪, 张玉茹. 经腹腔镜生物补片修补直肠癌根治术后盆底疝1例[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 115-116.
[3] 杜晓辉, 崔建新. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术淋巴结清扫范围与策略[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 5-8.
[4] 周岩冰, 刘晓东. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术消化道吻合重建方式的选择[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 9-13.
[5] 张焱辉, 张蛟, 朱志贤. 留置肛管在中低位直肠癌新辅助放化疗后腹腔镜TME术中的临床研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 25-28.
[6] 王春荣, 陈姜, 喻晨. 循Glisson蒂鞘外解剖、Laennec膜入路腹腔镜解剖性左半肝切除术临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 37-40.
[7] 李晓玉, 江庆, 汤海琴, 罗静枝. 围手术期综合管理对胆总管结石并急性胆管炎患者ERCP +LC术后心肌损伤的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 57-60.
[8] 甄子铂, 刘金虎. 基于列线图模型探究静脉全身麻醉腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后肠道功能紊乱的影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 61-65.
[9] 逄世江, 黄艳艳, 朱冠烈. 改良π形吻合在腹腔镜全胃切除消化道重建中的安全性和有效性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 66-69.
[10] 李三祥, 李佳, 刘俊峰, 吕东晨, 方晖东, 谭朝晖, 刘杰, 潘佐, 乔建坤. 基于CT影像的三维重建成像技术在腹腔镜大肾上腺肿瘤切除术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 570-574.
[11] 赵佳晖, 王永兴, 彭涛, 李明川, 魏德超, 韩毅力, 侯铸, 姜永光, 罗勇. 后腹腔镜根治性肾切除手术时间延长和术中出血量增多的影响因素分析[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 575-580.
[12] 汪帮琦, 陈波特, 林浩坚, 许晖阳, 王镇伟, 袁雪峰, 林康健, 邱晓拂. 经腹入路3D腹腔镜联合输尿管硬镜同期处理肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻并肾盏结石的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 597-600.
[13] 林文斌, 郑泽源, 郑文能, 郁毅刚. 外伤性脾破裂腹腔镜脾切除术患者中转开腹风险预测模型构建[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 619-623.
[14] 牛朝, 李波, 张万福, 靳文帝, 王春晓, 李晓刚. 腹腔镜袖状胃切除联合胆囊切除治疗肥胖合并胆囊结石安全性和疗效[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 635-639.
[15] 李博, 胡刚, 邱文龙, 汤坚强, 王锡山. 多功能吲哚菁绿近红外荧光血管成像技术在腹腔镜直肠癌经自然腔道取标本手术(NOSES Ⅳ式)中的应用(附视频)[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 524-528.
阅读次数
全文


摘要