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]. 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]. 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] 刘嘉嘉, 王承华, 陈绪娇, 刘瑗玲, 王善钰, 屈海花, 张莉. 经阴道子宫-输卵管实时三维超声造影中患者疼痛发生情况及其影响因素分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(09): 959-965.
[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] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 易明超, 汪鑫, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种T型记忆金属线在经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 599-599.
[13] 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.
[14] 卢艳军, 马健, 白鹏宇, 郭凌宏, 刘海义, 江波, 白文启, 张毅勋. 纳米碳在腹腔镜直肠癌根治术中253组淋巴结清扫的临床效果[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 473-477.
[15] 孙秀艳, 徐庆蕾, 马鹏涛, 胡志元, 郭传真, 祝成红. 腹腔镜胃癌根治术中患者体温变化与压力性损伤及受压部位微环境的相关性分析[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 480-484.
阅读次数
全文


摘要