切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版)

中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (06) : 591 -594. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2021.06.012

临床论著

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术和开放疝修补术治疗嵌顿性腹股沟疝的对比研究
宫能银1,†(), 伍南斌1   
  1. 1. 231500　合肥，庐江县人民医院东区外一科
  • 收稿日期:2021-02-03 出版日期:2021-12-20
  • 通信作者: 宫能银
  • 基金资助:
    合肥市2016年度科研项目计划(合科[2016]50号)

Comparative study of laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal hernia repair and open tension-free herniorrhaphy for incarcerated inguinal hernia

Nengyin Gong1,†(), Nanbin Wu1   

  1. 1. East Outer One Departmen, Lujiang County People's Hospital, Hefei 231500, China
  • Received:2021-02-03 Published:2021-12-20
  • Corresponding author: Nengyin Gong
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

宫能银, 伍南斌. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术和开放疝修补术治疗嵌顿性腹股沟疝的对比研究[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(06): 591-594.

Nengyin Gong, Nanbin Wu. Comparative study of laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal hernia repair and open tension-free herniorrhaphy for incarcerated inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(06): 591-594.

目的

比较腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术（TAPP）和开放无张力疝修补术治疗嵌顿性腹股沟疝的临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2018年11月至2020年11月于庐江县人民医院诊治的60例嵌顿性腹股沟疝患者作为研究对象。根据行不同的手术类型，分别入组为试验组和对照组，各30例。试验组行TAPP，对照组行开放无张力疝修补术。比较2组手术临床指标、术后疼痛情况，并统计2组术后并发症发生率及复发率。

结果

试验组的围手术期临床指标如手术时间长于对照组，而排气时间、术后下床活动时间及住院时间均较对照组更短（P<0.05），2组患者在术后6个月的阶段内视觉模拟评估法（VAS）评分均有明显降低（P<0.05），而试验组术后3、6个月的VAS评分较对照组的降低情况更佳（P<0.05）。随访2~12个月，试验组与对照组并发症总发生情况分别为3例（10.0%）和4例（13.3%），差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。

结论

TAPP手术较开放无张力疝修补术治疗嵌顿性腹股沟疝具有术后恢复快、疼痛小等优势，且并未增加患者的并发症发生率。

关键词: 嵌顿性腹股沟疝, 腹腔镜, 疝修补术, 疗效
Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) and opentension-free hernia repair in the treatment of incarcerated inguinal hernia.

Methods

The clinical data of 60 patients with incarcerated inguinal hernia admitted to our hospital from November 2018 to November 2020 were analyzed, and they were divided into the experiment group (n=30) and the control group (n=30) according to the different operation method. The experiment group underwent TAPP operation, and the control group underwent open tension-free hernia repair. The clinical indicators and postoperative pain of the two groups were compared, and the postoperative complications occurrence rate and recurrence rate of the two groups were counted after operation.

Results

The operation time of the experimental group was significantly longer than that of the control group, while the exhaust time, postoperative time to get out of bed and hospital stay were significantly shorter than those of the control group (P<0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of the two groups of patients were significantly reduced from preoperative to 6 months after surgery (P<0.05), and the VAS scores of the experimental group were significantly lower than those of the control group at 3 and 6 months after surgery (P<0.05). Follow-up for 2 to12 months, the total incidence of complications in the experimental group and the control group was 3 cases (10.0%) and 4 cases (13.3%) respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with open tension-free herniorrhaphy in the treatment of incarcerated inguinal hernia, TAPP has the advantages of rapid postoperative recovery and less pain, and does not increase the incidence of complications in patients.

Key words: Incarcerated inguinal hernia, Laparoscopes, Herniorrhaphy, Clinical efficacy
表1 2组围手术期临床指标比较（±s）
组别 例数 手术时间(min) 排气时间(h) 术后下床活动时间(h) 住院时间(d)
试验组 30 87.49±9.78 9.61±1.84 8.15±1.91 3.03±1.25
对照组 30 70.67±7.91 12.92±2.75 10.79±2.38 6.37±1.48
t值   16.347 5.603 4.832 3.839
P值   <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
表2 2组手术前后疼痛视觉模拟评分比较（分，±s）
组别 例数 术前 术后1周 术后3个月 术后6个月 F值 P值
试验组 30 4.52±1.01 1.79±0.70 1.13±0.35 0.63±0.21 215.353 <0.05
对照组 30 4.57±1.03 2.13±0.81 1.42±0.47 0.97±0.30 143.081 <0.05
t值   0.193 1.763 2.741 5.138 - -
P值   >0.05 >0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - -
[1]
Sawayama H, Kanemitsu K, Okuma T, et al. Safety of polypropylene mesh for incarcerated groin and obturator hernias: a retrospective study of 110 patients[J]. Hernia, 2014, 18(3): 399-406.
[2]
Duan S, Ding N, Liu H, et al. A novel bowel necrosis classification system and examination of patient outcomes in incarcerated groin hernia patients[J]. Int Surg, 2015, 100(1): 96-100.
[3]
周敏，林虹，韩宇. 腹股沟疝术后10%盐水冰袋冷敷联合疝气袋的使用与普通沙袋压迫的临床对比[J]. 护士进修杂志, 2014, 29(8): 763-764.
[4]
朱雁飞，蒋志阳，陶国青. 不同手术方式治疗腹股沟疝的疗效分析[J]. 贵州医药, 2017, 41(12): 1277-1278.
[5]
中华医学会外科学分会疝和腹壁外科学组，中国医师协会外科医师分会疝和腹壁外科医师委员会. 成人腹股沟疝诊疗指南(2014年版)[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2014, 52(7): 481-484.
[6]
Lohsiriwat D, Lohsiriwat V. Long-term outcomes of emergency Lichtenstein hernioplasty for incarcerated inguinal hernia[J]. Surg Today, 2013, 43(9): 990-994.
[7]
Kamtoh G, Pach R, Kibil W, et al. Effectiveness of mesh hernioplasty in incarcerated inguinal hernias[J]. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne, 2014, 9(3): 415-419.
[8]
周志涛，毛常青，吕培标, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前补片植入术治疗腹股沟疝的临床应用研究[J]. 四川医学, 2016, 37(3): 274-276.
[9]
贺廷帮. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术与开放式无张力疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的临床对比研究[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2016, 21(8): 618-620.
[10]
蔡昭，胡星辰，李绍杰, 等. 腹膜前间隙补片修补术治疗高龄嵌顿性腹股沟疝的临床观察[J]. 老年医学与保健, 2016, 22(2): 83-84.
[11]
Maillart JF, Vantournhoudt P, Piret-Gerard G, et al. Transinguinal preperitoneal groin hernia repair using a preperitoneal mesh preformed with a permanent memory ring: a good alternative to Lichtenstein's technique[J]. Hernia, 2011, 15(3): 289-295.
[12]
Gong K, Zhang N, Lu Y, et al. Comparison of the open tension-free mesh-plug, transabdominal preperitoneal(TAPP), and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized controlled trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2011, 25(1): 234-239.
[13]
叶小勇，张帆，陈新岐, 等. 腹腔镜无张力疝修补术治疗老年双侧腹股沟疝32例分析[J]. 贵州医药, 2015, 39(7): 609-610.
[14]
姜笑明，孙荣勋，陈润浩, 等. 经下腹部正中切口腹膜前修补术治疗腹股沟嵌顿疝的临床疗效[J]. 中国临床医学, 2017, 24(5): 785-788.
[15]
王辉，孙杰，陈先志, 等. 腹腔镜下经腹腹膜前疝修补术与疝环充填式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效比较[J]. 中国临床保健杂志, 2018, 21(2): 271-274.
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 阿冲罗布, 陈颖, 谢德坤. 腹腔镜外囊完整剥离术治疗肝包虫病效果及对患者肝功能、预后的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 666-669.
[14] 索郎多杰, 高红桥, 巴桑顿珠, 仁桑. 腹腔镜下不同术式治疗肝囊型包虫病的临床疗效分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 670-673.
[15] 汤海琴, 郭秀枝, 朱晓素, 赵世娣. “隧道法”腹腔镜解剖性左半肝切除术的临床安全性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 674-677.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号