腹腔镜经腹腹膜前修补术与完全腹膜外修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效及术后血清肿情况分析

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.02.011

中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (02) : 142 -145. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.02.011

所属专题：文献；

论著

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前修补术与完全腹膜外修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效及术后血清肿情况分析

王文超¹, 邢小平¹^,^†(

), 郑志¹

^1. 101300　北京市顺义区医院普外一科

收稿日期:2018-12-11 出版日期:2019-04-18
通信作者: 邢小平

Clinical effect comparison the of laparoscopic transabdominalpreperitonealhernia repair and laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal repair in the treatment of inguinal hernia and analysis of the incidence of postoperative seroma

Wenchao Wang¹, Xiaoping Xing¹^,^†(), Zhi Zheng¹

^1. Department of General Surgery, Hospital of Shunyi District, Beijing 101300, China

Received:2018-12-11 Published:2019-04-18
Corresponding author: Xiaoping Xing
About author:
Corresponding author: Xing Xiaoping, Email: bjxiaoping@sina.com

全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用

目的

探讨腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术（laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal hernia repair，TAPP）及腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术（laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal，TEP）治疗腹股沟疝的疗效及术后血清肿发生率，并分析血清肿发生原因及预防治疗措施。

方法

回顾性分析2017年1月至2018年6月，北京市顺义区医院腹股沟疝75例患者的临床资料，按照术式不同分为TAPP组（45例）及TEP组（30例）。分别监测2组的手术时间、术后住院时间、住院费用等围术期指标及术后血清肿发生情况。

结果

相对于TEP组，TAPP组手术时间明显缩短，差异有统计学意义[（55.50±4.25）min比（65.36±6.52）min，P<0.05]。但TAPP组住院费用高于TEP组，差异有统计学意义[（1.45±0.07）万元比（1.25±0.05）万元，P<0.05]。TAPP组和TEP组术后住院时间比较，差异无统计学意义[（3.25±1.34）d比（3.55±1.20）d，P>0.05]。TAPP组术后血清肿发生率低于TEP组，差异有统计学意义[2.22%（1/45）比13.33%（4/30），P<0.05]。

结论

相对于传统腹股沟疝修补术，TAPP与TEP均具有显著的治疗效果，但TAPP住院费用相对较高。TAPP相对于TEP可降低术后血清肿发生概率。合理的术式选择，准确的术中操作可能是减少术后血清肿发生率的关键。

关键词: 疝，腹股沟, 疝修补术, 腹腔镜, 血清肿，复发

Objective

To explore the difference between laparoscopic transabdominalpreperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) and laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal repair (TEP) in the treatment of inguinal hernia and the incidence of postoperative seroma, and to analyze the causes of seroma and preventive treatment measures.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 45 TAPP patients with inguinal hernia (TAPP group) and 30 TEP patients with inguinal hernia (TEP group) treated in the hospital of Shunyi District from January 2017 to June 2018. Perioperative indicators such as operation time, postoperative hospitalization time, hospitalization cost, as well as postoperative incidence of seromas in the two groups were monitored respectively.

Results

Compared with TEP group, TAPP group reduced the operative time [(55.50±4.25) minutes vs (65.36±6.52) minutes, P<0.05].However, the hospitalization cost of TAPP group was higher than that of TEP group [(14 500±700) yuan vs (12 500±500) yuan, P<0.05]. Postoperative hospitalization days in the TAPP group and TEP group were (3.25±1.34) and (3.55±1.20) days, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). The incidence of postoperative seroma in TAPPgroup was lower than that in the TEP group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with traditional open inguinal hernia repair, both TAPP and TEP have significant therapeutic effects, but TAPP has a relatively high cost of hospitalization. Compared with TEP, TAPP can reduce the incidence of postoperative seroma. We believe that reasonable patient selection and accurate intraoperative operation may be the key to reduce the incidence of postoperative seroma.

Key words: Hernia, inguinal, Herniorrhaphy, Laparoscopes, Seroma, Recurrence

表1 2组患者术前基本情况比较

组别	例数	年龄(岁, ±s)	性别(女)[例(%)]	斜疝[例(%)]	疝环R>3 cm[例(%)]
TAPP	45	60.20±2.50	2(4.44)	42 (93.33)	10
TEP	30	61.20±3.50	1(3.33)	28(93.33)	8
检验值		t=0.49	χ²=0.06	χ²=0.00	χ²=0.20
P值		>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05

表1 2组患者术前基本情况比较

组别	例数	年龄(岁, ±s)	性别(女)[例(%)]	斜疝[例(%)]	疝环R>3 cm[例(%)]
TAPP	45	60.20±2.50	2(4.44)	42 (93.33)	10
TEP	30	61.20±3.50	1(3.33)	28(93.33)	8
检验值		t=0.49	χ²=0.06	χ²=0.00	χ²=0.20
P值		>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05

表2 2组患者围手术期相关指标、住院费用及术后血清肿发生率比较

组别	例数	手术时间(min, ±s)	住院时间(d, ±s)	住院费用(万元, ±s)	血清肿[例(%)]
TAPP	45	55.50±4.25	3.25±1.34	1.45±0.07	1(2.22)
TEP	30	65.36±6.52	3.55±1.20	1.25±0.05	4(13.33)
检验值		t=7.93	t=0.98	t=13.50	χ²=3.57
P		<0.05	>0.05	<0.05	<0.05

表2 2组患者围手术期相关指标、住院费用及术后血清肿发生率比较

组别	例数	手术时间(min, ±s)	住院时间(d, ±s)	住院费用(万元, ±s)	血清肿[例(%)]
TAPP	45	55.50±4.25	3.25±1.34	1.45±0.07	1(2.22)
TEP	30	65.36±6.52	3.55±1.20	1.25±0.05	4(13.33)
检验值		t=7.93	t=0.98	t=13.50	χ²=3.57
P		<0.05	>0.05	<0.05	<0.05

[1]	李宝山. 平片三针固定法在腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术中的应用[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(5): 355-358.
[2]	Wake B L, Mccormack K, Fraser C, et al. Transabdominal pre-peritoneal(TAPP) vs totally extraperitoneal(TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair.[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2005, 5(1): CD004703.
[3]	O'Dwyer P, Macintyre I, Grant A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open repair of groin hernia: a randomisedcomparison[J]. Lancet, 1999, 354(9174): 185-190.
[4]	魏海梁. 腹腔镜下疝修补术在腹股沟疝中的临床应用价值[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2015, 9(5): 378-380.
[5]	李鹏，赵维山，李汝红, 等. 腹腔镜全腹膜外疝修补术与开放腹膜前疝修补术的临床对比分析[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2015, 9(6): 487-489.
[6]	Reiner MA, Bresnahan ER. Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair outcomes[J]. JSLS, 2016, 20(3): 00043.
[7]	Reddy VM, Sutton CD, Bloxham L, et al. Laparoscopic repair of direct inguinal hernia: a new technique that reduces the development of postoperative seroma[J]. Hernia, 2007, 11(5): 393-396.
[8]	Muysoms F, Campanelli G, Champault GG, et al. EuraHS: the development of an international online platform for registration and outcome measurement of ventral abdominal wall hernia repair[J]. Hernia, 2012, 16(3): 239-250.
[9]	刘国忠，翁山耕，张建斌. 疝囊剥离与横断在男性腹股沟斜疝中的随机对照研究[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 264-267.
[10]	Reddy V M, Sutton C D, Bloxham L, et al. Laparoscopic repair of direct inguinal hernia: a new technique that reduces the development of postoperative seroma[J]. Hernia, 2007, 11(5): 393-396.
[11]	Schouten N, Elshof JWM, Simmermacher RKJ, et al. Selecting patients during the "learning curve" of endoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal(TEP) hernia repair[J]. Hernia, 2013, 17(6): 737-743.
[12]	Leibl BJ, Schmedt CG, Ulrich M, et al. Laparoscopic hernia therapy(TAPP)as a teaching operation[J]. Der Chirurg, 2000, 71(8): 939-942; discussion 943.

[1]	燕速, 霍博文. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治性切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 13-13.
[2]	母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[3]	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.
[4]	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.
[5]	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.
[6]	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.
[7]	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.
[8]	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.
[9]	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.
[10]	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.
[11]	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.
[12]	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.
[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

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Clinical effect comparison the of laparoscopic transabdominalpreperitonealhernia repair and laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal repair in the treatment of inguinal hernia and analysis of the incidence of postoperative seroma

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Clinical effect comparison the of laparoscopic transabdominalpreperitonealhernia repair and laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal repair in the treatment of inguinal hernia and analysis of the incidence of postoperative seroma