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) ›› 2021, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (04) : 382 -385. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2021.04.017

临床论著

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前修补手术与Lichtenstein手术对术后疼痛及全身炎症反应的影响
白建云1,()   
  1. 1. 102499 北京市房山区中医医院普外科
  • 收稿日期:2020-11-19 出版日期:2021-08-18
  • 通信作者: 白建云

Effects of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair versus Lichtenstein procedure on postoperative pain and systemic inflammatory response: A prospective randomized controlled study

Jianyun Bai1,()   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Fangshan District Hospital of TCM, Beijing 102499, China
  • Received:2020-11-19 Published:2021-08-18
  • Corresponding author: Jianyun Bai
引用本文:

白建云. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前修补手术与Lichtenstein手术对术后疼痛及全身炎症反应的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(04): 382-385.

Jianyun Bai. Effects of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair versus Lichtenstein procedure on postoperative pain and systemic inflammatory response: A prospective randomized controlled study[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(04): 382-385.

目的

对比腹腔镜经腹腹膜前修补术和Lichtenstein手术治疗原发腹股沟疝的全身炎症反应、术后疼痛和并发症情况。

方法

收集2018年1月至2019年12月北京市房山区中医医院普外科收治90例的单侧腹股沟疝患者资料,包括术前、术后24 h和术后7 d的C反应蛋白、白细胞介素6、白细胞和中性粒细胞水平。采用视觉模拟评分量化疼痛程度,分析手术时间与术后免疫反应的相关性。

结果

2组患者的术前资料无统计学差异。2组患者的术后C反应蛋白、白细胞介素6、白细胞、中性粒细胞水平以及术后24 h疼痛评分无明显差异(P>0.05)。2组患者的C反应蛋白水平和术后7 d疼痛评分没有差异(P>0.05)。腹腔镜组手术时间长于Lichtenstein手术组,手术时间与术后7 d的视觉模拟评分呈弱相关性(R=0.32)。2组患者随访期内并发症发生率无统计学差异(P>0.05)。

结论

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前修补手术与Lichtenstein相比,在术后疼痛、免疫反应和并发症方面不具备明显优势,且手术时间相对更长。

Objective

To compare systemic inflammation, postoperative pain, and complications in the treatment of primary inguinal hernia by laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal and Lichtenstein procedure.

Methods

Data of 90 patients with unilateral inguinal hernia admitted to Fangshan district hospital of TCM from January 2018 to December 2019 were collected, including the levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, white blood cell count and neutrophils before operation, at 24 hours and 7 days after operation. Visual analogue score was used to quantify pain severity and to analyze the correlation between operative time and postoperative immune response.

Results

There was no statistical difference in preoperative data between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the levels of CRP, IL-6, leukocytes, neutrophils and postoperative pain score at 24 hours after operation between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no difference in C-reactive protein levels or pain scores at 7 days postoperatively between the two groups (P>0.05). The duration of surgery was longer in the TAPP group than in the Lichtenstein group, and there was a weak correlation between the duration of surgery and the VAS score at 7 days postoperatively (R=0.32). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups during the follow-up period (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair does not have significant advantages over Lichtenstein procedure in terms of postoperative pain, immune response and complications, and the operative time is relatively longer.

表1 2组患者的基本资料
表2 2组患者术后免疫反应和疼痛相关指标
表3 2组患者术后并发症情况
[1]
唐健雄, 李绍杰. 我国疝与腹壁外科发展和在新世纪创新挑战[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2020, 40(1): 89-92.
[2]
Jin C, Shen Y, Chen J, et al. Surgery for incarcerated inguinal hernia: outcomes with Lichtenstein versus open preperitoneal approach[J]. Int J Abdom Wall Hernia Surg, 2019, 2: 44-49.
[3]
The HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(1): 1-165.
[4]
曹新岭, 张管平, 李涛. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术对男性患者术后疼痛和生殖功能影响的前瞻性随机对照研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(5): 507-511.
[5]
Akhtar K, Parrott NR, FrcsM, et al. Metabolic and inflammatory responses after laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair[J]. Ann R CollSurg, 1998, 80: 125-130.
[6]
欧阳剑波, 黄耿文, 何文, 等. 多学科合作快速康复外科理念在腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术围手术期的应用[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2017, 26(4): 112-119.
[7]
Watt DG, Horgan PG, McMillan DC. Routine clinical markers of the magnitude of the systemic inflammatory response after elective operation: a systematic review[J]. Surgery, 2015, 157(2): 362-380.
[8]
Gebhard F. Is interleukin 6 an early marker of injury severity following major trauma in humans?[J]. Arch Surg, 2000, 135(3): 291-295.
[9]
Bulbuller N, Kirkil C, GodekmerdanA, et al. The comparison of inflammatory responses and clinical results after groin hernia repair using polypropylene or polyester meshes[J]. Indian J Surg, 2015, 77(Suppl 2): 283-287.
[10]
Wu JJ, Way JA, Eslick GD, et alTransabdominal pre-peritoneal versus open repair for primary unilateral inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis[J]. World J Surg, 2018, 42: 1304-1311.
[11]
Ypsilantis P, Didilis V, TsigalouC, et al. Systemic inflammatory response after single-incision laparoscopic surgery versus standard laparoscopic approach[J]. SurgLaparoscEndoscPercutan Tech, 2012, 22(1): 21-24.
[12]
Bender O, Balcı FL, YüneyE, et al. Systemic inflammatory response after Kugel versus laparoscopic groin hernia repair: a prospective randomized trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2009, 23(12): 2657-2661.
[13]
Hill AD, Banwell PE, DarziA, et al. Inflammatory markers following laparoscopic and open hernia repair[J]. Surg Endosc, 1995, 9(6): 695-698.
[14]
Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing laparoscopic transabdominalpreperitoneal(TAPP) versus Lichtenstein repair for bilateral inguinal hernias[J]. Am J Surg, 2018, 216(1): 78-83.
[15]
Schwab R, Eissele S, BrücknerUB, et al. Systemic inflammatory response after endoscopic(TEP) vsShouldice groin hernia repair[J]. Hernia, 2004, 8(3): 226-232.
[16]
Köckerling, Ferdinand, Bittner R, et al. Lichtenstein Versus Total Extraperitoneal Patch Plasty Versus Transabdominal Patch Plasty Technique for Primary Unilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Registry-based, Propensity Score-matched Comparison of 57, 906 Patients[J]. Ann Surg, 2019, 269(2): 351-357.
[1] 燕速, 霍博文. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治性切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 13-13.
[2] 母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 郭兵, 王万里, 何凯, 黄汉生. 腹腔镜下肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 143-143.
[14] 李凯, 陈淋, 苏怀东, 向涵, 张伟. 超微创器械在改良单孔腹腔镜巨大肝囊肿开窗引流及胆囊切除中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 144-144.
[15] 魏丽霞, 张安澜, 周宝勇, 李明. 腹腔镜下Ⅲb型肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 145-145.
阅读次数
全文


摘要