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 (06) : 587 -590. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2021.06.011

临床论著

腹腔镜下腹股沟无张力疝修补术与Lichtenstein疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的临床研究
麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明1, 阿卜杜萨拉木1, 李义亮1, 皮尔地瓦斯1, 王志1, 赛甫丁1, 李赞林1, 屈鹏1, 克力木1,()   
  1. 1. 830000 乌鲁木齐,新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院微创、疝和腹壁外科
  • 收稿日期:2019-11-22 出版日期:2021-12-20
  • 通信作者: 克力木
  • 基金资助:
    新疆维吾尔自治区自然科学基金(2016D01C217)

Clinical application of laparoscopic tension-free hernioplasty and Lichtenstein hernioplasty in the treatment of elderly patients with inguinal hernia

Maimaitiming Maimaitiaili·1, Abudusalamu1, Yiliang Li1, Pierdiwasi1, Zhi Wang1, Saifuding1, Zanlin Li1, Peng Qu1, Kelimu1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Minimally Invasive, Hernia and Abdominal Walt Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830000, China
  • Received:2019-11-22 Published:2021-12-20
  • Corresponding author: Kelimu
引用本文:

麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 阿卜杜萨拉木, 李义亮, 皮尔地瓦斯, 王志, 赛甫丁, 李赞林, 屈鹏, 克力木. 腹腔镜下腹股沟无张力疝修补术与Lichtenstein疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(06): 587-590.

Maimaitiming Maimaitiaili·, Abudusalamu, Yiliang Li, Pierdiwasi, Zhi Wang, Saifuding, Zanlin Li, Peng Qu, Kelimu. Clinical application of laparoscopic tension-free hernioplasty and Lichtenstein hernioplasty in the treatment of elderly patients with inguinal hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(06): 587-590.

目的

比较腹腔镜下腹股沟无张力疝修补术(LTIHR)与Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的临床疗效及安全性。

方法

回顾性分析2014年3月至2017年6月新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院收治的老年腹股沟疝患者251例,年龄≥60岁,其中122例患者行LTIHR术(LTIHR组),129例患者行Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术(Lichtenstein组),观察比较2组患者一般资料、术后恢复情况、术后并发症及复发等情况。

结果

2组患者一般资料比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组患者手术时间、术前住院时间、术中出血量、下床活动时间、术后住院时间比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05);但术后24 h视觉模拟评分(VAS),LTIHR组小于Lichtenstein组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后LTIHR组和Lichtenstein组中尿潴留、阴囊或大阴唇肿胀、切口感染、腹股沟区感觉异常情况比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05);切口血清肿、慢性疼痛(VAS>3分)分别依次为2、3和11、11例,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后随访时间为13~34个月,中位随访时间为18个月,LTIHR组和Lichtenstein组复发情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

腹腔镜下腹股沟无张力疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝安全有效,与Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术对比,具有术后创伤小、恢复快、术后切口血清肿发生率及术后疼痛少等优点。术前应充分结合个体情况,合理选择应用不同术式治疗腹股沟疝,以便达到更好效果。

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic tension-free hernioplasty (LTIHR) and Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty in the treatment of elderly patients with inguinal hernia.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was made of 251 elderly patients with inguinal hernia (aged over 60 years) admitted to the People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region from March 2014 to June 2017. 122 patients underwent LTIHR (laparoscopic group) and 129 patients underwent Lichtenstein tension-free hernioplasty (Lichtenstein group). The baseline data, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications and recurrence of the two groups were observed and compared.

Results

There was no significant difference in baseline data between laparoscopic group and Lichtenstein group (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in operation time, preoperative hospital stay, intraoperative bleeding volume, time of getting out of bed and days of hospitalization after operation (P>0.05). However, the visual analogue score (VAS) at 24 hours after operation in LTIHR group was lower than that in Lichtenstein group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in urinary retention, scrotal or labia major swelling, incision infection and groin sensory abnormality. Incision seroma and chronic pain (VAS>3) were 2, 3 cases and 11, 11 cases, respectively, and there was significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05). The follow-up time was 13 to 34 months, with median follow-up time of 18 months. There was no significant difference between the two groups in recurrence (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic tension-free inguinal hernia repair is safe and effective in the treatment of elderly inguinal hernia. Compared with Lichtenstein tension-free hernia repair, it has the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery, less incision seroma and less pain. Different surgical methods should be reasonably selected to treat inguinal hernia combined with the individual situation before operation in order to achieve better results.

表1 2组患者一般临床资料比较
表2 2组腹沟股疝患者手术及术后情况的比较(±s
表3 2组患者术后并发症和疝复发情况比较[例(%)]
[1]
Group HS. International guidelines for groin hernia management[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(1): 1-165.
[2]
Öberg S, Andresen K, Klausen TW, et al. Chronic pain after mesh versus nonmesh repair of inguinal hernias: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Surgery, 2018, 163(5): 1151-1159.
[3]
Wei K, Lu C, Ge L, et al. Different types of mesh fixation for laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2018, 97(16): e0423.
[4]
Burcharth J, Pedersen M, Bisgaard T, et al. Nationwide prevalence of groin hernia repair[J]. Plos One, 2013, 8(1): e54367.
[5]
Sgourakis G, Dedemadi G, Gockel I, et al. Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal versus open preperitoneal mesh repair for inguinal hernia recurrence: a decision analysis based on net health benefits[J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(7): 2526-2541.
[6]
梁永辉,磨鹏诗,廖伟明, 等. 腹腔镜下修补术与开放式无张力修补术在老年腹股沟疝的疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(1): 34-37
[7]
许邦文,贺登峰,霍宗红, 等. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补治疗腹股沟疝260例报告[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2012, 5(4): 43-46.
[8]
Nikkolo C, Lepner U. Chronic pain after open inguinal hernia repair[J]. Postgrad Med, 2016, 128(1): 69-75.
[9]
郭涛,刘朋朋,刘权焰. 老年人腹股沟疝腹腔镜与开腹手术的疗效及安全性评价: Meta分析[J]. 腹部外科, 2017, 30(1): 48-51, 64.
[10]
毕晓晨,周伟. 开放与腹腔镜完全腹膜外无张力疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的疗效对比[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2015(3): 797-798.
[11]
Kumar A, Agrahari A, Pahwa HS, et al. A Prospective nonrandomized study of comparison of perioperative and quality of life outcomes of endoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: data from a developing country[J]. J Lap Adv Surg Tech, 2017, 27(3): 264-267.
[12]
王爱光,吕传鹤,蒋林哲. 腹股沟疝无张力修补术后慢性疼痛原因分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2011, 5(2): 36-39
[13]
刘嘉欣,李汝红,于海东, 等. TAPP与TEP对腹股沟疝术后慢性疼痛的影响[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2016, 9(2): 121-123.
[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