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) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (03) : 270 -273. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.03.005

临床论著

老年患者在三种腹股沟疝修补术后短期并发症的研究
史俊1,(), 张剑1, 张勇1   
  1. 1. 243000 安徽省马鞍山市人民医院胃肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2022-02-02 出版日期:2022-06-20
  • 通信作者: 史俊
  • 基金资助:
    马鞍山市科技计划项目(YL-2021-10)

Study of short-term complications after three inguinal hernia repairs in elderly patients

Jun Shi1,(), Jian Zhang1, Yong Zhang1   

  1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, People's Hospital of Anhui Province, Maanshan 243000, Anhui Province, China
  • Received:2022-02-02 Published:2022-06-20
  • Corresponding author: Jun Shi
引用本文:

史俊, 张剑, 张勇. 老年患者在三种腹股沟疝修补术后短期并发症的研究[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 270-273.

Jun Shi, Jian Zhang, Yong Zhang. Study of short-term complications after three inguinal hernia repairs in elderly patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(03): 270-273.

目的

探究疝环充填式无张力疝修补术(Rutkow)、腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术(TEP)及腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(TAPP)在老年腹股沟疝患者术后短期并发症中的应用。

方法

选取2019年1月至2020年12月于马鞍山市人民医院收治的90例老年腹股沟疝患者为研究对象,按照所接受手术方式的不同分为Rutkow组、TEP组和TAPP组,每组各30例。比较3组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后下床活动时间、住院时间、恢复情况、疼痛情况、并发症及复发率。

结果

3组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术后1 d的疼痛视觉模拟评分及术后肠鸣音恢复时间比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Rutkow组与TEP组及TAPP组手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术后1 d的疼痛视觉模拟评分及术后肠鸣音恢复时间比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3组患者术后下床时间、术后3及7 d的疼痛视觉模拟评分情况、术后肛门排气时间及首次排便时间比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。Rutkow组、TEP组和TAPP组并发症发生率依次为20.00%、6.67%、10.00%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);Rutkow组与TEP组及TAPP组术后并发症发生率比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Rutkow组、TEP组和TAPP组复发率依次为3.33%、0%、0%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

TEP术和TAPP术对改善老年腹股沟疝患者术后短期并发症方面,效果更加显著,但三种方法各有优缺点和其适应证,应根据患者的具体情况选择不同的手术修补方式。

Objective

To investigate the pain and short-term complications of hernia ring filling tension-free hernia repair (Rutkow), laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair (TEP), and laparoscopic transmembrane anterior hernia repair (TAPP) in elderly patients after inguinal hernia surgery.

Methods

A total of 90 elderly patients with inguinal hernia admitted from January 2019 to December 2020 were selected as the research objects, and were divided into Rutkow group, TEP group and TAPP group according to the different surgical methods, with 30 patients in each group. Operation (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative time to get out of bed, length of hospital stay), pain, postoperative recovery (anal exhaust time, bowel sound recovery time, first defecation time), complications and recurrence rate of 3 groups were compared.

Results

There were statistically significant differences between the three groups in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, pain on the visual analog scale one day after surgery, and postoperative bowel sound recovery time (P<0.05). There were statistically significant differences between the Rutkow group, the TEP group, and the TAPP group in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, visual analog scale of pain one day after operation, and postoperative bowel sound recovery time (P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the time it took to get out of bed after surgery, the visual analog scale of pain at 3 and 7 days after surgery, the time of postoperative anal exhaust, or the timing of the first bowel movement (P>0.05). The incidence of complications was 20.00% in the Rutkow group, 6.67% in the TEP group, and 10.00% in the TAPP group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications between the Rutkow group and the TEP and TAPP groups (P<0.05). The recurrence rates of the Rutkow group, the TEP group and the TAPP group were 3.33%, 0%, and 0%, respectively, with no significant difference (P>0.05).

Conclusion

TEP and TAPP have more significant effects on the improvement of postoperative pain and short-term complications in elderly patients with inguinal hernia, but the three methods have their own advantages and disadvantages as well as their indications, so different surgical repair methods should be selected according to the specific situation of patients.

表1 3组患者手术情况比较(±s
表2 3组术后疼痛视觉模拟评分情况比较(分,±s
表3 3组术后恢复情况比较(h,±s
表4 3组患者复发率和并发症情况比较[例(%)]
[1]
彭延春, 赵司卫, 刘祥尧. TAPP、TEP及IPOM 3种疝修补术治疗腹股沟复发疝的临床对比研究[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2019, 35(6): 950-953.
[2]
梁明超, 梁盛枝, 吴跃锐, 等. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术与疝环填充式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝疗效比较[J]. 海南医学, 2018, 29(12): 1744-1746.
[3]
苏红军, 戴圣海. 传统疝修补术和充填式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝疗效比较研究[J]. 临床军医杂志, 2017, 45(12): 1305-1307.
[4]
杨寅熙, 吴一峰, 吴铁. TEP与TAPP术治疗腹股沟疝临床疗效比较[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2018, 22(04): 241-243.
[5]
陈双, 唐健雄, 马颂章. 成人腹股沟疝诊疗指南[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2012, 32(10): 833-835.
[6]
严广斌. 视觉模拟评分法[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2014, 8(2): 273.
[7]
胡海斌. 补中益气汤辅助无张力疝气修补术治疗腹股沟疝患者的临床观察[J]. 中国民间疗法, 2020, 28(7): 51-53.
[8]
马先, 贺杰, 马俊帅. 丹红注射液结合抗菌药物对腹股沟疝术后血清MMP-2、MMP-9、TIMP-2、TIMP-1及应激指标作用机制研究[J]. 世界中医药, 2019, 14(9): 2404-2407.
[9]
吕云雨. 腹膜外腹腔镜疝气修补术与传统疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝临床疗效观察[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2019, 19(20): 3594-3595.
[10]
梁明超, 梁盛枝, 吴跃锐, 等. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术与疝环填充式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝疗效比较[J]. 海南医学, 2018, 29(12): 1744-1746.
[11]
吕承刚, 刘良超, 王亚东, 等. 腹腔镜经腹膜前疝修补术与疝环充填式无张力修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的临床预后对比分析[J]. 中国医药导报, 2021, 18(26): 121-124.
[12]
Usmani F, Wijerathne S, Malik S, et al. Effect of direct defect closure during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair( "TEP/TAPP plus" technique)on post-operative outcomes[J]. Hernia, 2020, 24(1): 167-171.
[13]
陈胜才, 何海荣, 胡趣儿. 三种不同腹腔镜术式治疗老年复发性腹股沟疝的临床效果比较[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2015, 20(2): 99-102.
[14]
肖强, 曾军, 梁海飞, 等. 不同术式的疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝后的临床疗效观察[J]. 河北医学, 2017, 23(4): 603-607.
[15]
Banki F, Kaushik C, Roife D, et al. Laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernia without the need for esophageal lengthening with low morbidity and rare symptomatic recurrence[J]. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2017, 29(3): 418-425.
[16]
Scheuermann U, Niebisch S, Lyros O, et al. Transabdominal Preperitoneal(TAPP) versus Lichtenstein operation for primary inguinal hernia repair-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. BMC Surg, 2017, 17(1): 55.
[1] 李凤仪, 李若凡, 高旭, 张超凡. 目标导向液体干预对老年胃肠道肿瘤患者术后血流动力学、胃肠功能恢复的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 29-32.
[2] 李建美, 邓静娟, 杨倩. 两种术式联合治疗肝癌合并肝硬化门静脉高压的安全性及随访评价[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 41-44.
[3] 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.
[4] 杨体飞, 杨传虎, 陆振如. 改良无充气经腋窝入路全腔镜下甲状腺手术对喉返神经功能的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 74-77.
[5] 刘跃刚, 薛振峰. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝日间手术在老年患者中的安全性分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 711-714.
[6] 杨瑞洲, 李国栋, 吴向阳. 腹股沟疝术后感染的治疗方法探讨[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 715-719.
[7] 徐金林, 陈征. 抗菌药物临床应用监测对腹股沟疝修补术预防用药及感染的影响[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 720-723.
[8] 于智慧, 赵建军. 后路腰方肌阻滞复合全身麻醉在腹股沟斜疝经腹腹膜前手术中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 734-739.
[9] 田静, 方秀春. 超声引导下横筋膜平面阻滞在儿童腹股沟疝手术的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 740-744.
[10] 李静如, 王江玲, 吴向阳. 简易负压引流在腹股沟疝术后浅部感染中的疗效分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 745-749.
[11] 王红艳, 马艳丽, 郑洁灿. 手术室综合护理在腹股沟疝手术中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 755-758.
[12] 代格格, 杨丽, 胡媛媛, 周文婷. 手术室综合干预在老年腹股沟疝患者中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 759-763.
[13] 王敏, 蒋家斌, 李茂新. 预警宣教联合个性化疼痛管理对腹股沟疝手术患者的影响[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 764-767.
[14] 王蕾, 王少华, 牛海珍, 尹腾飞. 儿童腹股沟疝围手术期风险预警干预[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 768-772.
[15] 郭震天, 张宗明, 赵月, 刘立民, 张翀, 刘卓, 齐晖, 田坤. 机器学习算法预测老年急性胆囊炎术后住院时间探索[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 955-961.
阅读次数
全文


摘要