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) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (01) : 47 -50. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.01.013

所属专题: 文献

论著

腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术和平片修补术治疗长期使用抗凝药物的腹股沟疝患者的对比研究
刘业星1, 张冬辉1,(), 庄哲宏1, 张剑宝1, 张朝军1, 梁智浩1   
  1. 1. 518033 广东深圳,中山大学附属第八医院(深圳福田)胃肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2018-10-18 出版日期:2019-02-18
  • 通信作者: 张冬辉

Control study in clinical effect of TEP versus patch repairing for inguinal hernia with long term anticoagulant drug using

Yexing Liu1, Donghui Zhang1(), Zhehong Zhuang1, Jianbao Zhang1, Chaojun Zhang1, Zhihao Liang1   

  1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Sugery, The Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun yat-sen University, Shenzhen 518033, China
  • Received:2018-10-18 Published:2019-02-18
  • Corresponding author: Donghui Zhang
引用本文:

刘业星, 张冬辉, 庄哲宏, 张剑宝, 张朝军, 梁智浩. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术和平片修补术治疗长期使用抗凝药物的腹股沟疝患者的对比研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(01): 47-50.

Yexing Liu, Donghui Zhang, Zhehong Zhuang, Jianbao Zhang, Chaojun Zhang, Zhihao Liang. Control study in clinical effect of TEP versus patch repairing for inguinal hernia with long term anticoagulant drug using[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(01): 47-50.

目的

比较腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术(laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal,TEP)和局部浸润麻醉下平片修补术治疗长期使用抗凝药物腹股沟疝患者的临床效果。

方法

回顾分析2017年4月至2018年4月,中山大学附属第八医院行TEP和平片修补术治疗长期使用抗凝药物的腹股沟疝52例患者的临床资料,按照术式不同分为2组。TEP组25例,平片修补术组27例,随访3~12个月。比较2组手术时间、术后重大心脑血管并发症、术后引流量、血肿或浆液肿、腹股沟神经异常或慢性疼痛、术后复发、术后感染等方面的差异。

结果

2组均无重大心脑血管并发症患者,均无复发及感染患者。TEP组和平片修补术组手术时间分别为(55.2±10.3)min和(32.4±4.3)min,血肿或浆液肿发生率分别为7例(28%)和1例(3.7%),引流量分别为(40.8±8.6)ml和(36.6±5.2)ml,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);腹股沟神经异常或慢性疼痛发生率分别为2例(8%)和2例(7.4%),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

对老年腹股沟疝患者,长期应用抗凝药物不是手术禁忌证,做好围手术期处理,选择合适的麻醉和手术方式是治疗成功的关键。

Objective

To compare the clinical effect of TEP and patch repairing for inguinal hernia with long term anticoagulant drug using.

Methods

From April 2017 to April 2018, a retrospective analysis was conducted on 52 patients (aged from 53 to 82) of inguinal hernia with long term anticoagulant drug using who were performed with TEP (25 patients) or patch repairing (27 patients) in the Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun yat-sen University. No recurrence and patch infection were found after a period of follow-up for more than 3 months. The differences in operation time, postoperative drainage, hematoma, inguinal nerve sensory abnormalities or pain of the two groups were compared.

Results

There were no severe cardiac and cerebral vascular complications in two groups. The operation time of the TEP group and patch repair group was (55.2±10.3) minutes and (32.4±4.3) minutes, respectively (P<0.05). The incidence of hematoma was 28% and 3.7%, respectively (P<0.05), the difference was statistically significant. The drainage of the two groups were (40.8±8.6) ml and (36.6±5.2) ml (P>0.05). The incidence of inguinal nerve sensory abnormalities or pain in TEP group and patch repair group was 8% and 7.4% (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Long term anticoagulant drug using is not surgical contraindication for patients with inguinal hernia. It's safe for patients to choose appropriate anesthesia and operating methods.

表1 2组腹股沟疝患者一般资料比较
表2 2组术中及术后临床资料比较
[1]
陈双. 腹股沟疝外科学[M]. 广州: 中山大学出版社, 2005: 76-83.
[2]
Smoot RL, Oderich GS, Taner CB, et al. Postoperative hematoma following inguinal herniorrhaphy: patient characterstics leading to increased[J]. Hernia, 2008, 12(3): 261-265.
[3]
Czechowski A, Schafmayer A. TAPP versus TEP: a retrospective analysis 5 years after laparoscopic transperitoneal and total endoscopic extraperitoneal repair in inguinal and fenoral hernia[J]. Chirug, 2003, 74(12): 1142-1149.
[4]
郭仁宣, 苏东明. 腹外疝的外科治疗[M]. 沈阳: 辽宁科学技术出版社, 2003: 700-703.
[5]
李民, 刘小卫, 熊俊, 等. 腹股沟疝无张力修补术例术后并发症原因分析[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2010, 4(3): 27-29.
[6]
Scott PD, Harold KL, Craft RO. Postoperative Seroma Deepto Meshafter Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: Computed Tomography Appearance and Implications for Treatment[J]. Radiol Case Rep, 2015, 3(1): 128.
[7]
Ismail M, Garg M, Rajagopal M.Impact of closed-suction drain in preperitoneal space on the incidence ofseromaformation afterlaparoscopictotal extraperitoneal inguinalherniarepair [J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2009, 19(3): 263-266.
[8]
吴日钊, 隋梁, 李亮. 开放式双侧腹股沟疝腹膜前修补术防治血清肿的临床研究[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2011, 5(3): 282-288.
[9]
乐飞, 李健文, 王文瑞, 等. 单中心腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术4445例[J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2016, 31(9): 724-727.
[10]
屈坤鹏, 司若湟, 杨晓军, 等. 医用胶和钉合固定直疝假性疝囊预防直疝术后血清肿的比较[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志, 2015, 22(4): 443-446.
[11]
王家兴, 张杰. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外修补术与经腹腹膜前修补术优缺点对比分析[J]. 创伤与急危重病医学, 2017, 5(3): 172-176.
[1] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[2] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[3] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[4] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[5] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[6] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[7] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[8] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[9] 李博, 贾蓬勃, 李栋, 李小庆. ERCP与LCBDE治疗胆总管结石继发急性重症胆管炎的效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 60-63.
[10] 韩戟, 杨力, 陈玉. 腹部形态CT参数与完全腹腔镜全胃切除术术中失血量的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[11] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[12] 冯旺, 马振中, 汤林花. CT扫描三维重建在肝内胆管细胞癌腹腔镜肝切除术中的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 104-107.
[13] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[14] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[15] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?