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) ›› 2020, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (01) : 47 -50. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2020.01.012

所属专题: 文献

临床论著

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术中各种补片固定方法的疗效观察
郭春海1,(), 吴永哲1, 魏金平1, 李华志1, 许臣1, 崔宏力1   
  1. 1. 100022 北京市垂杨柳医院普外科
  • 收稿日期:2019-07-29 出版日期:2020-02-18
  • 通信作者: 郭春海

Therapeutic effect of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) in various methods of mesh fixation

Chunhai Guo1,(), Yongzhe Wu1, Jinping Wei1, Huazhi Li1, Chen Xu1, Hongli Cui1   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Beijing Chuiyangliu Hospital, Beijing 100022, China
  • Received:2019-07-29 Published:2020-02-18
  • Corresponding author: Chunhai Guo
引用本文:

郭春海, 吴永哲, 魏金平, 李华志, 许臣, 崔宏力. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术中各种补片固定方法的疗效观察[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(01): 47-50.

Chunhai Guo, Yongzhe Wu, Jinping Wei, Huazhi Li, Chen Xu, Hongli Cui. Therapeutic effect of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) in various methods of mesh fixation[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(01): 47-50.

目的

探讨医用胶粘合、钉枪钉合及可吸收线缝合固定补片在腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(TAPP)中的疗效差别及对并发症的影响。

方法

2017年9月至2018年12月,对北京市垂杨柳医院90例初发腹股沟疝患者进行TAPP手术治疗。术中分别采用医用胶粘合、钉枪钉合及可吸收线缝合固定补片,每组患者30例。术后随访6~12个月。

结果

各组患者均无复发,医用胶粘合组术后局部血清肿0例,钉枪钉合组1例,可吸收线缝合组1例;医用胶粘合组术后未发生慢性疼痛,钉枪钉合组1例,可吸收线缝合组1例。医用胶粘合、钉枪钉合及可吸收线缝合固定补片各组的手术时间分别为(47.5±7.3)min、(36.4±6.5)min,及(69.2±6.6)min,两两比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。医用胶粘合、钉枪钉合及可吸收线缝合固定补片组术后住院时间分别为(3.1±0.7)d、(3.2±0.6)d及(3.2±0.7)d,两两比较,差异均有统计学意义(P>0.05)。钉枪钉合组住院费用[(13 325±645)元]显著高于医用胶组[(9629±646)元]及可吸收线缝合组[(9617±429)元],差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);医用胶粘合组住院费用与可吸收线缝合组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后l、3、5、7、14 d疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS),钉枪钉合组及可吸收线缝合组显著高于医用胶组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。可吸收线缝合组与可吸收线缝合组术后1 d、7 d VAS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后3 d、5 d、14 d VAS评分比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

TAPP术中各种补片固定方法均安全有效,均未有补片移位甚至导致复发发生;钉枪钉合是手术时间最短的固定方法;医用胶粘合及可吸收线缝合固定相对便宜;医用胶粘合可减低术后疼痛和减低血肿的发生。

Objective

To investigate the difference of curative effect and complications of the mesh fixation of laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) with medical adhesive, auto-suture tacks or absorbable suture.

Methods

90 cases of primary inguinal hernia treated by the TAPP in Beijing Chuiyangliu Hospital during September 2017 to December 2018 were reviewed. In our control studies, 90 patients were divided into three groups using medical adhesive, auto-suture tacks or absorbable suture, respectively. And they were followed up for 6 to 12 months.

Results

There was no recurrence in all groups. There were 0 case of local seroma in the medical adhesive group, 1 case in the auto-suture tacks group, and 1 case in the absorbable suture group; No chronic pain occurred in the medical adhesive group. But one case of auto-suture tacks group was happened, and one case in the absorbable suture group. The operative times in each groups of medical adhesive, auto-suture tacks and absorbable suture were (47.5±7.3) minutes, (36.4±6.5) minutes, and (69.2±6.6) minutes. The time of auto-suture tacks group was significantly shorter than the medical adhesive group and the absorbable suture group (P<0.05); And the medical adhesive group was shorter than the absorbable suture group (P<0.05); The postoperative lengths of stay were (3.1±0.7) days, (3.2±0.6) days and (3.2±0.7) days, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the groups (P>0.05). The hospitalization expenses of auto-suture tacks group were (13,325±645) yuan. This expense was apparently higher than the medical adhesive group [(9629±646) yuan, P<0.05] and absorbable suture group [(9617±429) yuan, P<0.05]; There was no significant difference between the medical adhesive group and the absorbable suture group (P>0.05). The postoperative pain scores at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 days after operation in the auto-suture tacks group and in the absorbable suture group were apparently higher than in the medical adhesive group (P<0.05). The pain scores of the absorbable suture group was generally lower than that of the auto-suture tacks group.

Conclusion

Various methods of mesh fixation in TAPP are safe and effective, and there is no meshes displacement or even recurrence. In comparison, the fixation by auto-suture tacks is the fastest method; medical adhesive and absorbable suture fixation is relatively inexpensive; the fixation by medical adhesive can reduce postoperative pain and decrease the occurrence of hematoma.

表1 3组初发腹股沟疝患者术后疼痛视觉模拟评分比较(分,±s
表2 3组初发腹股沟疝患者临床疗效比较(例)
[1]
McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM, et a1. Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2003(1): CD001785.
[2]
陈杰. 对"2018年国际腹股沟疝指南"的点评[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(5): 326
[3]
中华医学会外科学分会腹腔镜与内镜外科学组,中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组. 大中华腹腔镜疝外科学院.腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术规范化操作指南[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2013, 33(7): 566-570.
[4]
Lichtenstein IL, Shulman A, Amid P. The tension-free hernioplasty [J]. Am J Surg, 1989, 157: 188-193.
[5]
陈杰,申英末,陈富强. 我国疝和腹壁外科二十年快速发展的现状与展望[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2017, 16(9): 899-902.
[6]
中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组,中国医师协会外科医师分会疝和腹壁外科医师委员会. 成人腹股沟疝诊断和治疗指南(2018年版)[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2018, 17(7): 645-648.
[7]
Bansal VK, Krishna A, Misra MC, et al. Learning curve in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: experience at a tertiary care centre[J]. Indian J Surg, 2016, 78(3): 197-202.
[8]
Hollinsky C, Kolbe T, Walter I, et al. Tensile strength and adhesion formation of mesh fixation systems used in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair[J]. Surg Endosc, 2010, 24(6): 1318-1324.
[9]
Reynvoet E, Berrevoet F. Pros and cons of tacking in laparoscopic hernia repair[J]. Surg Technol Int, 2014, 25: 136-140.
[10]
王栓铎,姚毅明,刘国正. 可吸收缝线在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), 2016, 10(2): 123-124.
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 吴畏, 吴永哲, 李宗倍, 崔宏力, 李华志, 许臣. 轻质大网孔补片腹腔镜下疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的疗效及炎症因子的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 70-73.
[11] 莫波, 王佩, 王恒, 何志军, 梁俊, 郝志楠. 腹腔镜胃癌根治术与改良胃癌根治术治疗早期胃癌的疗效[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 644-647.
[12] 鲁鑫, 许佳怡, 刘洋, 杨琴, 鞠雯雯, 徐缨龙. 早期LC术与PTCD续贯LC术治疗急性胆囊炎对患者肝功能及预后的影响比较[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 648-650.
[13] 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.
[14] 马涛, 叶春伟, 刘滔, 彭文希, 李志鹏. 腹腔镜与开放性离断式肾盂成形术治疗小儿肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 605-610.
[15] 刘成, 赖聪, 黄健, 王建辰, 罗茜芸, 许可慰. EDGE SP1000单孔手术机器人辅助腹腔镜下猪输尿管部分切除联合端端吻合术的可行性研究[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 642-646.
阅读次数
全文


摘要