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) : 456 -460. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.05.018

所属专题: 文献

临床论著

完全剥离疝囊与横断处理疝囊在腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术中的疗效
冒卫华1,()   
  1. 1. 226500 江苏省,如皋市中医院普外科
  • 收稿日期:2019-02-09 出版日期:2019-10-18
  • 通信作者: 冒卫华
  • 基金资助:
    江苏省南通市科技社会发展计划资助项目(S11938)

Comparison on the effect of hernia sac transection and total dissection in laparoscopic preperitoneal herniorrhaphy

Weihua Mao1,()   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Rugao Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jiangsu 226500, China
  • Received:2019-02-09 Published:2019-10-18
  • Corresponding author: Weihua Mao
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Mao Weihua, Email:
引用本文:

冒卫华. 完全剥离疝囊与横断处理疝囊在腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术中的疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(05): 456-460.

Weihua Mao. Comparison on the effect of hernia sac transection and total dissection in laparoscopic preperitoneal herniorrhaphy[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(05): 456-460.

目的

探讨完全剥离疝囊与横断处理疝囊在腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(TAPP)中的应用效果。

方法

选择2016年7月至2018年6月,如皋市中医院行TAPP的患者120例,分为试验组和对照组各60例。试验组行横断疝囊处理试验组,对照组行完全剥离疝囊。观察并比较2组患者的手术/住院相关指标、生活质量及术后并发症发生情况。

结果

试验组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、疝囊处理时间、术后5 d腹股沟积液、住院费用及术后第2天的疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)分别为(47.11±4.15)min、(3.24±1.01)ml、(9.57±2.74)min、(5.27±1.09)ml、(8 105.69± 251.67)元及(2.11±0.97)分均低于对照组(57.69±5.28)min、(6.71±2.14)ml、(25.13±4.29)min、(13.75±3.56)ml、(11 241.55±397.52)元及(4.59±1.13)分,差异具有统计学意义(t=12.203、11.359、23.678、17.643、51.628、12.899,P均<0.001);试验组患者的住院时间(6.51±1.04)d与对照组(6.19±1.06)d比较,差异无统计学意义(t=1.669,P>0.05);术后6个月,试验组患者的健康状况调查简表(SF-36)评分及巴塞尔指数(BI)评分分别为(82.19±8.95)分及(83.01±7.94)分均高于对照组(75.11±8.02)分及(76.25±7.19)分,而改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分(73.19±7.02)分低于对照组(84.17±7.85)分,差异均有统计学意义(t=4.563、4.888、8.076,P均<0.001);术后试验组患者的神经感觉异常和总的并发症发生情况分别为0及1(1.67%),显著低于对照组5(8.33%)及11(18.33%),差异均有统计学意义(χ2=5.217、9.259,P=0.022、0.002);试验组患者血清肿发生情况为1(1.67%)与对照组6(10.00%)比较,差异无统计学意义(χ2=3.793,P=0.051)。

结论

TAPP修补术中,与疝囊剥离相比,横断疝囊可以减少手术时间,减轻手术损伤、缓解术后疼痛,且并发症发生率较低,有助于患者康复,提高生活质量。

Objective

To compare the effect on hernia sac transection and total dissection in transperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TAPP).

Methods

120 patients underwent TAPP from July 2016 to June 2018 in Rugao Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were selected. The observation group was treated with hernia sac transection and the control group was treated with hernia sac total dissection, with 60 cases in each group. The surgical/hospitalization related indicators, quality of life and postoperative complications were observed and compared between the two groups.

Results

The operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, hernia sac manage time, inguinal effusion of 5 days after operation, hospitalization expenses and visual analogue score (VAS) at the 2rd day after operation in the observation group [(47.11±4.15) minutes, (3.24±1.01) ml, (9.57±2.74) minutes, (5.27±1.09) ml, (8 105.69±251.67) yuan, (2.11±0.97) scores] were lower than those in the control group [(57.69±5.28) minutes, (6.71±2.14) ml, (25.13±4.29) minutes, (13.75±3.56) ml, (11 241.55±397.52) yuan, (4.59±1.13) scores], with statistical differences (t=12.203、11.359、23.678、17.643、51.628、12.899, all P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in hospitalization time between the two groups (t=1.669, P>0.05). In six months after the operation, the scores of Short Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36) and the Barthel Index (BI) in the observation group [(82.19±8.95) sores, (83.01±7.94) sores] were higher than those in the control group [(75.11±8.02) sores, (76.25±7.19) sores], while the score of improved Rankin scale (mRS) (73.19±7.02) sores was lower than that in the control group (84.17±7.85) sores, with statistical differences (t=4.563、4.888、8.076, all P<0.001). The incidence of neurosensory abnormalities and total complications in the observation group were 0 and 1.67% respectively, which were significantly lower than those in the control group (8.33% and 18.33%, χ2=5.217、9.259, P=0.022、0.002).

Conclusion

In TAPP repair, compared with hernia sac dissection, therapy of hernia sac transection can reduce operation time and operation injury, relieve postoperative pain, and the incidence of complications is lower, which is helpful for recovery and improve their quality of life.

表1 2组患者手术指标比较(±s
表2 2组患者住院指标比较(±s
表3 2组患者生活质量比较(分, ±s
表4 2组患者术后并发症发生情况比较[例(%)]
[1]
Sun J, Wang W, Li J, et al. Laparoscopic experience for recurrent inguinal hernia repair in a single center for 14 years[J]. Am Surg, 2018, 84(3): 344-350.
[2]
Powell BS, Lytle N, Stoikes N, et al. Primary prevascular and retropsoas hernias: incidence of rare abdominal wall hernias[J]. Hernia, 2015, 19(10): 513-516.
[3]
成人腹股沟疝诊断和治疗指南(2018年版)[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 244-246.
[4]
Dong Z, Kujawa SA, Wang C, et al. Does the use of hernia mesh in surgical inguinal hernia repairs cause male infertility? A systematic review and descriptive analysis[J]. Reprod Health, 2018, 15(1): 69.
[5]
崔钊, 鲁莹, 李秋琳, 等. 单孔腹腔镜治疗儿童巨大腹股沟斜疝[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2018, 18(9): 799-801.
[6]
杨寅熙, 吴一峰, 吴铁. TEP与TAPP术治疗腹股沟疝临床疗效比较[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2018, 22(4): 241-243.
[7]
成晓舟, 屈坤鹏, 景恩义, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术中采用疝囊剥离与横断处理治疗Ⅲ型腹股沟疝的对比研究[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2016, 21(10): 780-782.
[8]
Mendes CJ, Silva RA, Neto DP, et al. Prospective study of the neurotopographic adequacy of transverse incision in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2016, 95(44): e5335.
[9]
李雪微, 张雯, 李笑笑, 等. 急性缺血性卒中病人mRS评分与中医证型的相关性研究[J]. 中西医结合心脑血管病杂志, 2018, 16(19): 2879-2882.
[10]
周太成, 于洪燕, 马宁, 等. T型疝囊切开游离巨大斜疝疝囊在腹腔镜下经腹腔腹膜前疝修补术中的应用[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2018, 27(4): 488-493.
[11]
李胜君, 祁燕红. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术与完全腹膜外疝修补术的疗效对比[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(3): 207-210.
[12]
徐忠友. 完全剥离疝囊与横断处理疝囊在腹腔镜腹膜前间隙疝修补术中应用对比[J]. 现代诊断与治疗, 2017, 28(17): 3253-3254.
[13]
王梦桥, 徐宇飞, 黄河, 等. 腹腔镜腹膜前间隙疝修补术疝囊剥离与横断处理的临床分析[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2016, 10(2): 98-100.
[14]
王守光, 李海风, 刘忠诚, 等. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术治疗Ⅲ型阴囊疝术中疝囊处理方式对术后阴囊积液的影响[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2018, 23(10): 753-756.
[15]
罗亮, 沈攀, 黄智. 疝囊剥离与横断疝囊在老年TAPP术中应用效果比较[J]. 西南国防医药, 2018, 28(11): 1021-1023.
[16]
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.
[17]
李世清, 张栋军, 刘跟华. 男性腹股沟斜疝TAPP术中采用完全剥离与横断处理的效果对比[J]. 现代诊断与治疗, 2017, 28(14): 2640-2641.
[18]
孙中伟, 孙少川. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后血清肿预防与应对[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(2): 144-146.
[19]
王波, 陈剑锋, 尹小彬, 等. 腹股沟疝患者无张力修补术后1年慢性疼痛发生情况及影响因素分析[J]. 解放军预防医学杂志, 2018, 36(2): 211-213+257.
[1] 宋玟焱, 杜美君, 陈佳丽, 石冰, 黄汉尧. 唇腭裂手术围手术期疼痛管理的研究进展及基于生物材料治疗新方法的展望[J/OL]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 397-405.
[2] 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.
[3] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[4] 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.
[5] 李华志, 曹广, 刘殿刚, 张雅静. 不同入路下行肝切除术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 52-55.
[6] 常小伟, 蔡瑜, 赵志勇, 张伟. 高强度聚焦超声消融术联合肝动脉化疗栓塞术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的效果及安全性分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 56-59.
[7] 徐逸男. 不同术式治疗梗阻性左半结直肠癌的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 72-75.
[8] 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.
[9] 许杰, 李亚俊, 冯义文. SOX新辅助化疗后腹腔镜胃癌D2根治术与常规根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 647-650.
[10] 康婵娟, 张海涛, 翟静洁. 胰管支架置入术治疗急性胆源性胰腺炎的效果及对患者肝功能、炎症因子水平的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 667-670.
[11] 付成旺, 杨大刚, 王榕, 李福堂. 营养与炎症指标在可切除胰腺癌中的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 704-708.
[12] 刘柏隆, 周祥福. 女性尿失禁吊带手术并发症处理的经验分享[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 127-127.
[13] 嵇振岭, 陈杰, 唐健雄. 重视复杂腹壁疝手术并发症的预防和处理[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 601-606.
[14] 韦巧玲, 黄妍, 赵昌, 宋庆峰, 陈祖毅, 黄莹, 蒙嫦, 黄靖. 肝癌微波消融术后中重度疼痛风险预测列线图模型构建及验证[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 715-721.
[15] 蔡晓雯, 李慧景, 丘婕, 杨翼帆, 吴素贤, 林玉彤, 何秋娜. 肝癌患者肝动脉化疗栓塞术后疼痛风险预测模型的构建及验证[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 722-728.
阅读次数
全文


摘要