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 (04) : 366 -369. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2020.04.011

所属专题: 文献

临床论著

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前与局麻下开放式腹膜前疝修补术治疗股疝的对比研究
王志涛1, 关磊2, 聂玉胜2, 陈杰2,()   
  1. 1. 300481 北京市监狱管理局清河分局医院外科
    2. 100043 首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院疝和腹壁外科
  • 收稿日期:2019-07-30 出版日期:2020-08-18
  • 通信作者: 陈杰

Comparative study of TAPP and open peritoneal hernia repair under local anesthesia for the treatment of femoral hernia

Zhitao Wang1, Lei Guan2, Yusheng Nie2, Jie Chen2,()   

  1. 1. Department of Surgery, Qinghe Branch Hospital, Beijing Prison Administration Bureau, Beijing 300481, China
    2. Department of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100043, China
  • Received:2019-07-30 Published:2020-08-18
  • Corresponding author: Jie Chen
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Chen Jie, Email:
引用本文:

王志涛, 关磊, 聂玉胜, 陈杰. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前与局麻下开放式腹膜前疝修补术治疗股疝的对比研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(04): 366-369.

Zhitao Wang, Lei Guan, Yusheng Nie, Jie Chen. Comparative study of TAPP and open peritoneal hernia repair under local anesthesia for the treatment of femoral hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(04): 366-369.

目的

研究腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(TAPP)与局麻下开放式腹膜前间隙疝修补术两种手术方式治疗股疝对比研究。

方法

收集2015年1月至2016年6月,北京朝阳医院疝和腹壁外科收治40例股疝患者,对其的临床数据进行回顾性分析,根据手术方式不同分为腔镜组与开放组,腔镜组22例(55%),均采用TAPP手术治疗;开放组18例(45%),均采用开放腹膜前疝修补术治疗。比较不同手术方式的2组患者的住院时间、手术时间、术中出血量、术后疼痛、离床时间、术后住院时间,以及术后局部血肿、感染等并发症发生率。

结果

腔镜组与开放组手术所用时间、术中出血量、住院时间、术后疼痛、术后住院时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后离床时间比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),考虑与麻醉方式有关。2组均未出现血肿及感染等并发症,局部疼痛较轻,未发生慢性顽固性疼痛。术后随访6~18个月,2组均未出现复发病例。

结论

技术成熟的术者对于股疝的手术,TAPP与局麻开放式腹膜前疝修补术无明显差异,两种不同的手术方法各有其优缺点,应根据术前评估及术者手术技术水平选择合适的手术方式。

Objective

To compare laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) and open preperitoneal repair under local anesthesia for the treatment of femoral hernia.

Methods

From January 2015 to June 2016, the clinical data of 40 patients with femoral hernia treated in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed and divided into the laparoscopic group and the open group according to different surgical methods. 22 cases (55%) of the laparoscopic group were treated with TAPP; 18 cases (45%) of the open group were treated with open preperitoneal hernia repair. The hospitalization time, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, leaving bed time, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative local hematoma and infection were compared between the two groups.

Results

There was no significant difference between the laparoscopic group and the open group in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization time, postoperative pain, postoperative hospital stay (P>0.05). The difference in the leaving bed time after operation was statistically significant (P<0.05), which was considered related to the anesthesia method. There were no complications such as hematoma and infection in the two groups. The local pain was mild, and no chronic pain occurred. After 6 to 18 months of follow-up, there were no recurrences in the laparoscopic group and the open group.

Conclusion

For experienced surgeons, there is no significant difference between TAPP and open preperitoneal hernia repair for femoral hernia. Two different surgical methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, and the appropriate surgical method should be selected basing on preoperative evaluation and surgical skill level of the surgeon.

表1 腔镜组与开放组手术情况比较(±s
[1]
陈孝平,汪建平. 外科学[M]. 8版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2013: 329-330.
[2]
于志刚. 25例股疝患者的临床诊断与治疗[J]. 中国实用医药, 2014, 9(9): 50-51.
[3]
胡丹,严栋梁,郝清亚, 等. 经腹股沟韧带上入路腹膜前修补法治疗嵌顿性股疝[J]. 浙江临床医学, 2015, 17(9): 1529-1530
[4]
唐健雄. 从腹股沟解剖谈行腹股沟疝无张力修补术的必要性[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2001,21(2): 7-8.
[5]
孟宁,高鹏志,李明, 等. 耻骨肌孔在腹膜前间隙无张力疝修补术中的临床意义[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2015, 9(2): 35-37.
[6]
张进,王峰,赵文波,郭云童. 腹腔镜与开放行经腹膜前间隙股疝修补术的对比研究[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2019, 19(4): 594-596.
[7]
李健文,王瑞文,陈鑫. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术20年进展[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2014, 8(3): 192-195.
[8]
王平. 2018年国际腹股沟疝指南解读:成人腹股沟疝管理(二)[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(6): 401-405.
[9]
智永宏,郝永胜,霍瑞麟. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术与开放式腹膜前间隙疝修补术的临床疗效[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 293-296.
[10]
范国勇,甄作均,姚干,张庆峰. 腹腔镜下腔隙韧带切开术治疗嵌顿股疝的临床观察[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2018, 18(3): 273-276.
[1] 司钦亮, 毕世龙, 焦慧骁, 李世照, 陈哲禹, 武玉东. 精索去分化脂肪肉瘤两例并文献复习[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 585-590.
[2] 马东扬, 李斌, 陆安清, 王光华, 雷文章, 宋应寒. Gilbert 与单层补片腹膜前疝修补术疗效的随机对照研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 629-633.
[3] 王浩源, 汪海洋, 孙建明, 陈以宽, 祁小桐, 唐博. 腹腔镜与开放修补对肝硬化腹外疝患者肝功能及凝血的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 654-659.
[4] 周正阳, 陈凯, 仇多良, 邵乐宁, 吴浩荣, 钟丰云. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后出血原因分析及处理[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 660-664.
[5] 顾熙, 徐子宇, 周澍, 张吴楼, 张业鹏, 林昊, 刘宗航, 嵇振岭, 郑立锋. 腹股沟疝腹膜前间隙无张力修补术后补片感染10 例报道[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 665-669.
[6] 宋俊锋, 张珍珍. 单侧初发性腹股沟斜疝老年患者经腹腹膜前疝修补术中残余疝囊腹直肌下缘固定效果评估[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 670-674.
[7] 高娟, 徐建庆, 闫芳, 丁盛华, 刘霞. Rutkow、TAPP、TEP 手术治疗单侧腹股沟疝患者的临床疗效及对血清炎症因子水平的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 675-680.
[8] 于新峰, 曾琦, 后强, 徐浩, 操谢芳. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术和腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术对成人腹股沟疝治疗效果及预后分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 681-686.
[9] 方辉强, 黄杰, 随冰琰. 腰方肌阻滞与腹横肌平面阻滞对腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术患者术后镇痛效果的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 697-702.
[10] 朱佳琳, 方向, 贵诗雨, 黄丹, 周小雨, 郭文恺. 大鼠切口疝腹膜前间隙补片修补术后血清中VEGF 和Ang-1 的表达情况[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 703-707.
[11] 张晋伟, 董永红, 王家璇. 基于GBD2021 数据库对中国与全球老年人疝疾病负担和健康不平等的分析比较[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 708-716.
[12] 杨媛媛, 林贤超, 林荣贵, 陆逢春, 黄鹤光. 肌后/腹膜前补片修补巨大切口疝术后并发症防治[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 645-648.
[13] 袁志静, 黄杰, 何国安, 方辉强. 罗哌卡因联合右美托咪定局部阻滞麻醉在老年腹腔镜下无张力疝修补术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 557-561.
[14] 张锋, 孙孟奇, 方秀春. 静注右美托咪定、利多卡因对腹腔镜疝修补术患者围手术期心率、麻醉苏醒质量的比较[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 562-565.
[15] 何岩, 向文采. 七氟醚与异丙酚联合氯胺酮麻醉在疝修补术中的镇静镇痛效果及安全性[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 566-569.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?