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 (06) : 533 -536. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.06.013

所属专题: 文献

临床论著

不同手术方式治疗小儿腹股沟疝临床疗效
张小华1,(), 郭鹏1, 熊鑫1, 苏刚1   
  1. 1. 434300 湖北省公安县人民医院普外科
  • 收稿日期:2019-04-30 出版日期:2019-12-18
  • 通信作者: 张小华

Comparison of clinical efficacy of different surgical methods in the treatment of inguinal hernia in children

Xiaohua Zhang1,(), Peng Guo1, Xin Xiong1, Gang Su1   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, People's Hospital of Gongan County, Hubei, Gongan 434300, China
  • Received:2019-04-30 Published:2019-12-18
  • Corresponding author: Xiaohua Zhang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhang Xiaohua, Email:
引用本文:

张小华, 郭鹏, 熊鑫, 苏刚. 不同手术方式治疗小儿腹股沟疝临床疗效[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(06): 533-536.

Xiaohua Zhang, Peng Guo, Xin Xiong, Gang Su. Comparison of clinical efficacy of different surgical methods in the treatment of inguinal hernia in children[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(06): 533-536.

目的

比较腹腔镜手术方式、皮横纹下横行小切口术及传统开放手术治疗小儿腹股沟疝临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2012年1月至2019年1月,湖北省公安县人民医院住院治疗的小儿腹股沟疝396例患者的临床资料,其中行腹腔镜手术治疗124例(A组)、行皮横纹下横行小切口术134例(B组)、行传统开放手术138例(C组),比较3组患者手术效果及并发症发生情况。

结果

3组患儿手术时间、术中出血量、手术切口长度以及住院时间等情况比较,差异有统计学意义(F=1021.469、3426.029、1003.086、945.457,P均<0.001);组间两两比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3组患儿自主活动时间、术后排气时间以及疼痛评分情况比较,差异均有统计学意义(F=2051.296、519.327、232.345,P均<0.001);组间两两比较,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。3组患儿术后并发症总发生率比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=11.704,P=0.003);A组和B组并发症发生率均显著低于C组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);而A组与B组并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

相较于传统开放手术及皮横纹下横行小切口术,腹腔镜手术治疗小儿腹股沟疝具有手术时间短、创伤小,术后恢复快,安全性高等优点,值得临床上进一步推广应用。

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic surgery, small transverse incision under the transverse stripes surgery and traditional open surgery for the treatment of children with inguinal hernia.

Methods

The clinical data of 396 children with inguinal hernia treated by the People's Hospital of Gongan County from January 2012 to January 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 124 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (group A), 134 patients underwent small transverse incision under the transverse stripes surgery (group B) and 138 cases underwent traditional open surgery (group C). The surgical outcomes and complications of the three groups were compared.

Results

The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of incision, length of hospital stay, the time of activity, exhaust time and pain scores in the three groups were statistically significant (P<0.05). After multiple comparison, the differences were significant among the three groups. The complication rate of group A and group B (1.65%, 3.73%) was significantly lower than that of group C (10.86%) (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between group A and group B (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with traditional open surgery and small transverse incision under the transverse stripes surgery, laparoscopic surgery inguinal hernia has the advantages of short operation time, small trauma, quick recovery and high safety. It is worthy of further clinical application.

表1 3组患儿手术指标情况比较(±s
表2 3组患儿手术效果比较(±s
表3 3组患儿并发症发生率比较
[1]
Tabrizian F, Raisolsadat SM, Houshmand B, et al. Assessment of the necessity of sac high ligation in inguinal hernia open surgery among children[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2013, 48(3): 547-549.
[2]
李辉,徐业凤,陈焰, 等. 小儿疝气治疗中腹横纹小切口手术的应用及效果评估[J]. 中国医药导刊, 2016, 18(12): 1233-1234.
[3]
Miyake H, Fukumoto K, Yamoto M, et al. Comparison of percutaneous extrape "toneal closure(LPEC) and open repair for pediatric ingIlinal hemia: experience "a single institution with over 1000 cases[J]. Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(4): 1466-1472.
[4]
Feng S, Zhao L, Liao Z, et al. Open versus laparoscopic inguinal herniotomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on postoperative complications[J]. Surg Lapamsc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2015, 25(4): 275-280.
[5]
Huang CJ, Sun HP. Nonligation of indirect hernia sac in senior male patients with dilated internal ring[J]. Formos J Surg, 2013, 46(3): 76-78.
[6]
Uchida H, Kawashima H, Goto C, et al. Inguinal hernia repair in children using singl-eincision laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous extra peritoneal closure[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2010, 45(12): 2386-2389.
[7]
Kim S, Hui T. Laparoscopically assisted repair of inguinal hernia through a micro-incision and extra-peritoneal division and ligation of the hernia sac[J]. Pediatr Surg Int, 2013, 29(4): 331-334.
[8]
侯崇智,卞军. 施伟栋.等.腹腔镜下单通道自制疝气针完全腹膜外疝囊高位结扎术治疗小儿腹股沟斜疝163例[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2014, 14(6): 519-521.
[9]
Esposito C, Escolino M, TuITa F, et al. Cement concepts in the management of inguinal hemia and hydrocele in pediatric patients in laparoscopic era[J]. Semin Pediatr Surg, 2016, 25(4): 232-240.
[10]
王海刚,李莉蕊,李燕书, 等. 单孔腹腔镜与开放手术治疗小儿腹股沟斜疝对比研究[J]. 河北医药, 2013, 35: 2170-2171.
[11]
张振武,曹振杰,王涛, 等. 腹腔镜全腹膜外疝囊结扎术在小儿斜疝中的应用[J/CD]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2015, 8(6): 53-56.
[12]
刘琳,李索林. 腹腔镜技术诊治小儿腹股沟疝的演化[J]. 中华小儿外科杂志, 2016, 37(10): 796-800.
[13]
韦建英,李春雨,李茵. 小儿腹股沟疝外科不同术式的疗效分析[J]. 河北医药, 2014, 36(9): 1362-1364.
[14]
张晶. 不同手术方式治疗小儿腹股沟疝的临床效果分析[J]. 中外医疗, 2018, 37(10): 42-43, 51.
[15]
章建民. 腹横纹下小切口手术与传统手术治疗小儿腹股沟疝的对比研究[J]. 中国现代医生, 2015, 53(30): 28-30.
[16]
陈能亮,李目,汤华军. 不同手术方式治疗小儿腹股沟疝的临床疗效比较[J]. 实用临床医药杂志, 2016, 20(21): 118-119.
[17]
Saka R, Okuyama H, Sasaki T, et al. Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure for inguinal hernias and hydroceles in children: a comparison with traditional open repair[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2014, 24(1): 55-58.
[18]
Esposito C, St Peter SD, Escolino M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia r-epair in pediatric patients: a systematic review[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2014, 24(11): 811-818.
[19]
Garvey EM, Ostlie DJ. HiataI and paraesophageal hemia repair in pediatric patients[J]. Semin Pediatr Surg, 2017, 26(2): 61-66.
[20]
Chang YT, Wang JY, Lee JY, et al. One-trocar laparoscopic transpefitoneal closure of inguinal hernia in children[J]. World J Surg, 2008, 32(11): 2459-2463.
[1] 曹迪, 张玉茹. 经腹腔镜生物补片修补直肠癌根治术后盆底疝1例[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 115-116.
[2] 杜晓辉, 崔建新. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术淋巴结清扫范围与策略[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 5-8.
[3] 周岩冰, 刘晓东. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术消化道吻合重建方式的选择[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 9-13.
[4] 张焱辉, 张蛟, 朱志贤. 留置肛管在中低位直肠癌新辅助放化疗后腹腔镜TME术中的临床研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 25-28.
[5] 王春荣, 陈姜, 喻晨. 循Glisson蒂鞘外解剖、Laennec膜入路腹腔镜解剖性左半肝切除术临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 37-40.
[6] 李晓玉, 江庆, 汤海琴, 罗静枝. 围手术期综合管理对胆总管结石并急性胆管炎患者ERCP +LC术后心肌损伤的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 57-60.
[7] 甄子铂, 刘金虎. 基于列线图模型探究静脉全身麻醉腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后肠道功能紊乱的影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 61-65.
[8] 逄世江, 黄艳艳, 朱冠烈. 改良π形吻合在腹腔镜全胃切除消化道重建中的安全性和有效性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 66-69.
[9] 李凯, 陈淋, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种U型记忆合金线在经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 15-15.
[10] 李三祥, 李佳, 刘俊峰, 吕东晨, 方晖东, 谭朝晖, 刘杰, 潘佐, 乔建坤. 基于CT影像的三维重建成像技术在腹腔镜大肾上腺肿瘤切除术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 570-574.
[11] 赵佳晖, 王永兴, 彭涛, 李明川, 魏德超, 韩毅力, 侯铸, 姜永光, 罗勇. 后腹腔镜根治性肾切除手术时间延长和术中出血量增多的影响因素分析[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 575-580.
[12] 汪帮琦, 陈波特, 林浩坚, 许晖阳, 王镇伟, 袁雪峰, 林康健, 邱晓拂. 经腹入路3D腹腔镜联合输尿管硬镜同期处理肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻并肾盏结石的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 597-600.
[13] 林文斌, 郑泽源, 郑文能, 郁毅刚. 外伤性脾破裂腹腔镜脾切除术患者中转开腹风险预测模型构建[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 619-623.
[14] 牛朝, 李波, 张万福, 靳文帝, 王春晓, 李晓刚. 腹腔镜袖状胃切除联合胆囊切除治疗肥胖合并胆囊结石安全性和疗效[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 635-639.
[15] 张继新, 胡军红, 谢爽, 武祖印, 张春旭. 经阴道单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术可行性及近期疗效分析[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 460-465.
阅读次数
全文


摘要