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 (02) : 117 -121. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.02.005

所属专题: 文献

论著

回肠代膀胱术后造口疝二种术式的疗效
陈元浩1, 刘敏2, 陈杰2, 申英末2, 韩修武1,(), 张鑫1, 李高1   
  1. 1. 100043 首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院京西院区泌尿外科
    2. 100043 首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院疝和腹壁外科
  • 收稿日期:2018-10-12 出版日期:2019-04-18
  • 通信作者: 韩修武

Observation of two surgical treatment approaches of Paraileostomal Herniorraphy

Yuanhao Chen1, Min Liu2, Jie Chen2, Yingmo Shen2, Xiuwu Han1,,(), Xin Zhang1, Gao Li1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100043, China
    2. Department of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100043, China
  • Received:2018-10-12 Published:2019-04-18
  • Corresponding author: Xiuwu Han
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Han Xiuwu, Email:
引用本文:

陈元浩, 刘敏, 陈杰, 申英末, 韩修武, 张鑫, 李高. 回肠代膀胱术后造口疝二种术式的疗效[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(02): 117-121.

Yuanhao Chen, Min Liu, Jie Chen, Yingmo Shen, Xiuwu Han, Xin Zhang, Gao Li. Observation of two surgical treatment approaches of Paraileostomal Herniorraphy[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(02): 117-121.

目的

探讨杂交以及Keyhole2种方式治疗回肠代膀胱造口疝相关并发症的比较研究。

方法

收集2013年1月至2018年1月,首都医科大学附属朝阳医院京西院区住院治疗的回肠代膀胱术后并发造口疝30例患者的临床资料,其中杂交法组14例,Keyhole组16例。比较其术前、术后第1天、术后1周肌酐变化,统计术后泌尿外科相关并发症发生率等。

结果

杂交法组与Keyhole组在年龄、体质量指数、术前血肌酐、术后1周血肌酐、回肠膀胱术后至出现造口疝时间、出现造口疝至手术时间、疝囊大小、疝环大小、住院时间,术中出血量比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。杂交法组手术时间明显长于Keyhole法组,杂交法组术后第1天血肌酐明显高于Keyhole组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),但2组术后1周血肌酐水平比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。双肾积水发生率Keyhole组为0%,杂交法组为21%(3/14);其中术后7 d内有2例患者出现双肾积水,均于回肠膀胱造口留置尿管后解除;1例患者术后2个月出现双肾积水,通过双肾穿刺造瘘后解除尿路梗阻。

结论

对于回肠代膀胱术后并发造口疝患者,杂交法及Keyhole均为有效手术治疗方式,杂交法较Keyhole法出现术后短期一过性肌酐升高及肾积水的概率更高,但经保守治疗大部分可于短期内缓解,故推荐使用Keyhole法治疗回肠代膀胱造口疝。

objective

To evaluate the clinical outcome and urological complications of Keyhole surgery and hybrid technique in the treatment of paraileostomal herniorraphy.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 30 cases of paraileostomal herniorraphy after radical cystectomy in Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital from January 2013 to January 2018 was conducted, including 16 cases with Keyhole approaches and 14 cases with hybrid technique. Clinical effects and characteristics and the serum creatinine level of pre/post-operative were compared.

Results

Two approaches showed no significant differences in age BMI, pre-operative serum creatinine level, post-operative serum creatinine level at 1 week, the duration time of hernia history, the duration time of hernia occurrence to surgery, size of hernia sac, length of hernia, hospitalization time, volume of intraoperative blood loss. Operation time in hybrid group was apparently longer than that in Keyhole group (P<0.05). Serum creatinine level at 1 d after operation showed significant difference between two approaches, and hybrid group were higher than Keyhole group. Bilateral hydronephrosis was not observed in Keyhole group. The incidence of two bilateral hydronephrosis was 3/14 in hybrid group: 2 patients occurred within first week after surgery. The bilateral hydronephrosis were relieved after catheter placement. 1 patient was diagnosed bilateral hydronephrosis at 2 months after surgery, which relieved by bilateral percutaneous nephrostomy.

Conclusion

Hybrid and Keyhole approaches were both effective approaches for paraileostomal herniorraphy, hybrid group are more likely to have bilateral hydronephrosis and short-term increased serum creatinine level after surgery, and however it can be resolved through the effective treatment in short time. We suggest that the serum creatinine level should be monitored at least one week after surgery. If the hydronephrosis were observed it should be resolved properly.

图1 杂交法术中
图2 Keyhole法术中
表1 Keyhole组与杂交法组患者一般资料比较(±s
[1]
Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cote R, et al. Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1054 patients[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2001, 19(3): 666-675.
[2]
Donahue TF, Bochner BH. Parastomal hernias after radical cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion[J]. Investig Clin Urol, 2016, 57(4): 240-248.
[3]
Movassaghi K, Shah SH, Cai J, et al. Incisional and Parastomal Hernia following Radical Cystectomy and Urinary Diversion: The University of Southern California Experience[J]. J Urol, 2016, 1963 777-781.
[4]
Cingi A, Cakir T, Sever A, et al. Enterostomy site hernias: a clinical and computerized tomographic evaluation[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2006, 49(10): 1559-1563.
[5]
Kouba E, Sands M, Lentz A, et al. Incidence and risk factors of stomal complications in patients undergoing cystectomy with ileal conduit urinary diversion for bladder cancer[J]. J Urol, 2007, 178(3 Pt 1): 950-954.
[6]
Goligher JC, Lloyd-Davies OV, Robertson CT. Small-gut obstructions following combined excision of the rectum with special reference to strangulation round the colostomy[J]. Br J Surg, 1951, 38(152): 467-473.
[7]
Cuthbertson AM, Collins JP. Strangulated para-ileostomy hernia[J]. Aust N Z J Surg, 1977, 47(1): 86-87.
[8]
何凯,姚琪远,陈浩, 等. 腹腔镜下回肠袋膀胱造口旁疝补片修补术初步体会[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2007, 1(2): 110-112.
[9]
吴海啸,王先道,余谦, 等. 全膀胱切除术后输尿管梗阻的诊断和微创治疗[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2003, 25(3): 180-182.
[10]
Hyams ES, Winer AG, Shah O. Retrograde ureteral and renal access in patients with urinary diversion[J]. Urology, 2009, 74(1): 47-50.
[11]
Narang SK, Alam NN, Campain NJ, et al. Campain .Parastomal hernia following cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion: a systematic review[J]. Hernia, 2017, 21(2): 163-175.
[1] 田文, 杨晓冬. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术式选择及注意事项[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 595-597.
[2] 李涛, 陈纲, 李世拥. 腹腔镜下右侧腹股沟斜疝修补术(TAPP)[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 598-598.
[3] 孟飞龙, 华帅, 张莹, 路广海. 经脐单孔腹腔镜后鞘后入路在全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术中的应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 658-660.
[4] 陈俊宇, 崔宇. TAPP治疗腹股沟嵌顿疝的临床分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 546-549.
[5] 刘星, 吴立胜, 王炜林, 李猛. 远端疝囊残端固定与游离对腹股沟斜疝TAPP术后血清肿的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 550-553.
[6] 王可, 范彬, 李多富, 刘奎. 两种疝囊残端处理方法在经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术中的疗效比较[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 692-696.
[7] 袁伟, 张修稳, 潘宏波, 章军, 王虎, 黄敏. 平片式与填充式腹股沟疝修补术的疗效比较[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 697-701.
[8] 夏松, 姚嗣会, 汪勇刚. 经腹腹膜前与疝环充填式疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的对照研究[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 702-705.
[9] 刘跃刚, 薛振峰. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝日间手术在老年患者中的安全性分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 711-714.
[10] 徐金林, 陈征. 抗菌药物临床应用监测对腹股沟疝修补术预防用药及感染的影响[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 720-723.
[11] 于智慧, 赵建军. 后路腰方肌阻滞复合全身麻醉在腹股沟斜疝经腹腹膜前手术中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 734-739.
[12] 田静, 方秀春. 超声引导下横筋膜平面阻滞在儿童腹股沟疝手术的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 740-744.
[13] 王红艳, 马艳丽, 郑洁灿. 手术室综合护理在腹股沟疝手术中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 755-758.
[14] 王敏, 蒋家斌, 李茂新. 预警宣教联合个性化疼痛管理对腹股沟疝手术患者的影响[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 764-767.
[15] 朱青青, 卫贞祺. 腹股沟疝患者围手术期自我能效管理探讨[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 773-777.
阅读次数
全文


摘要