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 (05) : 429 -432. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.05.011

所属专题: 文献

临床论著

两种手术方法治疗老年复发性腹股沟疝的临床效果
王磊1,(), 王文耀1, 周正方1   
  1. 1. 050000 石家庄,河北医科大学第二院东院区普外科
  • 收稿日期:2019-01-09 出版日期:2019-10-18
  • 通信作者: 王磊
  • 基金资助:
    河北省卫计委医学科学研究重点课题计划(150225)

Clinical effect of two surgical methods on elderly patients with recurrent inguinal hernia

Lei Wang1,(), Wenyao Wang1, Zhengfang Zhou1   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, East campus, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050000, China
  • Received:2019-01-09 Published:2019-10-18
  • Corresponding author: Lei Wang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Wang Lei, Email:
引用本文:

王磊, 王文耀, 周正方. 两种手术方法治疗老年复发性腹股沟疝的临床效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(05): 429-432.

Lei Wang, Wenyao Wang, Zhengfang Zhou. Clinical effect of two surgical methods on elderly patients with recurrent inguinal hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(05): 429-432.

目的

探讨Lichtenstein术和腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(TAPP)联合腹膜前疝囊部分横断术治疗老年复发性腹股沟疝的临床效果与安全性。

方法

选择2013年2月至2018年5月,河北医科大学第二院东院区收治的腹股沟疝患者132例。随机分为对照组和试验组,每组患者66例。对照组患者采用Lichtenstein术,试验组采用TAPP联合腹膜前疝囊部分横断术。比较2组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后4 h疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、首次下床时间和住院时间、术后48 h的血清IgM、IgA、IgG水平,以及术后的并发症发生情况和复发情况。

结果

试验组患者的手术时间及术中出血量分别为(46.4±9.6)min及(36.5±5.1)ml,与对照组(41.3±8.7)min及(39.2±5.4)ml比较,差异有统计学意义(t=3.198、2.953,P=0.002、0.004);试验组患者术后4 h VAS评分、首次下床时间及住院时间分别为(4.6±1.5)分、(14.9±3.1)h及(5.2±1.8)d,与对照组(5.3±1.4)分、(16.2±3.6)h及(6.5±1.9)d比较,差异有统计学意义(t=2.772、2.223、4.035,P均<0.05);试验组患者IgM、IgA、IgG水平分别为0.78±0.10、1.43±0.31、6.84±0.73,与对照组0.67±0.11、1.26±0.25、5.79±0.61比较,差异有统计学意义(t=6.011、3.648、8.967,P均<0.05);试验组患者总并发症发生情况为2(3.03%)与对照组9(13.64%)比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.860,P=0.027);试验组患者复发情况为1(1.52%)与对照组3(4.55%),差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.031,P=0.310)。

结论

TAPP联合腹膜前疝囊部分横断术治疗老年复发性腹股沟疝的安全性较高,患者术后的免疫功能恢复较显著,并发症发生率较低,临床效果较显著。

Objective

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Lichtenstein operation and laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) repair combined with partial transection of preperitoneal hernia sac for the treatment of elderly patients with recurrent inguinal hernia.

Methods

A total of 132 patients with inguinal hernia admitted to the East campus of Second hospital of Hebei medical university between February 2013 and May 2018 were selected as subjects. They were randomly divided into the control group and the study group, with 66 cases in each group. The control group was treated with Lichtenstein operation, while the study group was treated with TAPP repair and partial peritoneal hernia sac transection. The operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, pain degree at 4 hours after operation, first time out of bed and hospitalization time, serum IgM, IgA and IgG levels at 48 hours after operation, as well as the occurrence of complications and recurrence at 3 months follow-up were compared between the two groups.

Results

The operation time of the study group was significantly longer than that of the control group [(46.4±9.6) minutes vs (41.3±8.7) minutes], the amount of bleeding during operation, the pain score at 4 hours after operation and the incidence of complications in the study group after operation were significantly lower than those in the control group [(36.5±5.1) ml vs (39.2±5.4) ml, (4.6±1.5) scores vs (5.3±1.4) scores, 2 (3.03%) vs 9 (13.64%)], the first time of bed-out and hospitalization in the study group was significantly shorter than that in the control group [(14.9±3.1) hours vs (16.2±3.6) hours , (5.2±1.8) days vs (6.5±1.9) days], the levels of IgM, IgA and IgG in the study group were significantly higher than those in the control group (0.78±0.10 vs 0.67±0.11, 1.43±0.31 vs 1.26±0.25, 6.84±0.73 vs 5.79±0.61), and the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05); There was no significant difference in recurrence between the two groups after 3 months (P>0.05).

Conclusion

TAPP repair combined with partial transection of preperitoneal hernia sac is safe for the treatment of elderly recurrent inguinal hernia, which can recover the immune function significantly, lower the incidence of complications, and worthy popularizing in clinic.

表1 2组患者的手术情况比较(±s
表2 2组患者术后恢复情况比较(±s
表3 2组患者术后48 h的IgM、IgA、IgG水平比较(±s
表4 2组患者术后的并发症发生率以及术后3个月复发情况比较
[1]
皮尔地瓦斯, 克力木, 艾克拜尔, 等. 腹腔镜下经腹腔腹膜前补片疝修补术和开放无张力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), 2011, 5(4): 25-28.
[2]
许笃行, 何美旋, 陈宇锋. 不同修补方式治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(03): 264-266.
[3]
闫治波, 李国永, 展翰翔, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前补片修补术治疗复发性腹股沟疝35例分析[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2015, 20(9): 693-695.
[4]
庄壁龙, 李楚洲. 腹股沟斜疝给予疝环充填式无张力修补术的效果探析[J/CD]. 中西医结合心血管病电子杂志, 2019, 7(15): 41-43.
[5]
郑郁, 陈国微. 传统疝修补术与无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝94例疗效比较[J]. 临床合理用药杂志, 2019, 12(17): 146-147.
[6]
曹军. 传统疝修补术与无张力性疝修补术治疗体会[J]. 黑龙江医药, 2015, 28(2): 382-383.
[7]
陈国星. 腹股沟疝传统张力修补术与充填式无张力修补术的临床效果比较[J]. 齐齐哈尔医学院学报, 2016, 37(36): 4506-4508.
[8]
何军明. 传统腹股沟斜疝修补术与疝环充填式无张力疝修补术临床疗效比较[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志, 2003, 12(6): 606-607.
[9]
刘汇明, 田庆, 袁义磊, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术与Lichtenstein术治疗成年人腹股沟复发疝的术后疼痛分析[J]. 中国医师进修杂志, 2017, 40(4): 325-328.
[10]
纪世敏, 吕宝勇, 葛孚旭, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前部分横断疝囊治疗复发腹股沟斜疝的体会[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2017, 22(2): 95-97.
[11]
Eker HH, Langeveld HR, Klitsie PJ, et al. Randomized clinical trial of total extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty vs Lichtenstein repair: A long-term follow-up study[J]. Arch Surg, 2012, 147(3): 256-260.
[12]
Zhong C, Wu B, Yang Z, et al. A meta-analysis comparing lightweight meshes with heavyweight meshes in Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair[J]. Surg Innov, 2013, 20(1): 24-31.
[13]
程家平, 文坤明, 李建国, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腔腹膜前疝修补与开放式网塞填充式无张力修补术治疗腹股沟复发疝对比分析[J]. 重庆医学, 2017, 46(20): 112-114.
[14]
宫政, 刘泽刚, 王世清, 等. 经腹腹膜前疝修补术治疗腹股沟复发疝的临床应用[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2015, 9(2): 29-31.
[15]
Freundlich RE, Hawes LT, Weldon SA, et al. Laparoscopic repair of an incarcerated right indirect sliding inguinal hernia involving a retroperitoneal ileum[J]. Hernia, 2011, 15(2): 225-227.
[16]
Bisgaard T, Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet H. Re-recurrence after operation for recurrent inguinal hernia. A nationwide 8-year follow-up study on the role of type of repair[J]. AnnSurg, 2008, 247(4): 707-711.
[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