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) : 297 -302. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.03.012

临床论著

三种局部麻醉小切口术式治疗腹股沟疝的疗效及舒适度对比
赵瑾1, 纪浩洋1, 马宏光1,()   
  1. 1. 100029 北京,中日友好医院乳甲外科
  • 收稿日期:2021-07-19 出版日期:2022-06-20
  • 通信作者: 马宏光

Comparison of the curative effect and comfort of three surgical treatments with local anesthesia and small incision for inguinal hernia

Jin Zhao1, Haoyang Ji1, Hongguang Ma1,()   

  1. 1. General Surgery, Breast and Tyroid Department, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029, China
  • Received:2021-07-19 Published:2022-06-20
  • Corresponding author: Hongguang Ma
引用本文:

赵瑾, 纪浩洋, 马宏光. 三种局部麻醉小切口术式治疗腹股沟疝的疗效及舒适度对比[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 297-302.

Jin Zhao, Haoyang Ji, Hongguang Ma. Comparison of the curative effect and comfort of three surgical treatments with local anesthesia and small incision for inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(03): 297-302.

目的

综合比较Lichtenstein术(常规平片)、Lichtenstein术(自粘式补片)及腹膜前间隙修补术治疗腹股沟疝的效果。

方法

选择2018年3月至2019年12月中日友好医院收治的473例腹股沟疝患者,依据修补方式将其分为A组(Lichtenstein术,使用常规平片,175例)、B组(Lichtenstein术,使用自粘式补片,109例)、C组(腹膜前间隙修补术,189例)。对比3组围手术期及长期随访情况,分析3组术后不同时刻疼痛程度和手术前后舒适状况,并比较近远期并发症发生率以探讨三种术式的安全性。

结果

B组手术持续时间短于A组和C组(P<0.05),A组和C组手术持续时间比较无显著差异(P>0.05);术中失血量3组间分别比较有统计学差异,B组失血量最少(P<0.01);B组住院费用高于A组和C组(P<0.05),A组和C组住院费用比较无明显差异(P>0.05);术后12、24 h,C组的视觉模拟评分(VAS)显著低于A组和B组(P<0.05),3组的VAS评分随时间推移均逐渐降低(P<0.05);术后美国舒适状况量表躯体维度评分3组间两两比较,差异均有统计学意义,C组最高(P<0.001);C组异物感发生率略低于A组和B组,但3组异物感发生率方面并无统计学差异(P>0.05);3组的复发率、局部积液、切口感染、发热及24 h尿潴留发生率等并发症发生率无显著差异(P>0.05)。

结论

Lichtenstein术(常规平片)、Lichtenstein术(自粘式补片)、腹膜前间隙修补术均能有效治疗腹股沟疝且都很安全,三种术式在围手术期情况、术后疼痛感及舒适感、远期疗效方面均有不同程度的差异性,因此对具体术式的选择仍需要根据患者情况具体分析。

Objective

To compare the effect of the three surgical methods(Lichtenstein operation (conventional patch), Lichtenstein operation (self-adhesive mesh), preperitoneal repair on inguinal hernia.

Methods

A total of 473 patients with inguinal hernia admitted to the hospital from March, 2018 to December, 2019 were divided into the group A (Lichtenstein operation with conventional patch, n=175), group B (Lichtenstein operation with self-adhesive mesh, n=109), and group C (Preperitoneal hernia repair operation, n=189). The perioperative period (operative time, blood loss volume, length of stays and hospitalization costs), the visual analogue scale (VAS) score at different times after operation, the General Comfort Questionnaire (GCQ) score and long-term follow-up (recurrence rate, foreign body sensation, local effusion, infection, fever and uroschesis) of three groups were compared.

Results

The operation duration in group B were shorter than those in groups A and C (P<0.05), and there were no differences in operation duration in group A and C (P>0.05).Intraoperative blood loss volume was different among the three groups with statistical differences (P<0.01), and the group B was the least. The hospitalization cost in group B were higher than that of groups A and C (P<0.05), and there were no differences in operation cost between group A and C (P>0.05); The VAS score of group C was lower than that of groups B and A at 12 and 24 hours after surgery (P<0.05); VAS scores of the three groups decreased gradually over time (P<0.05). After the operation, the physical dimension score of the GCQ was different among the three groups with statistical differences (P<0.001), and the group C was the highest. The incidence of foreign body sensation in group C was slightly lower than that in group A and B but here was no significant difference in the incidence of foreign body sensation among the three groups (P>0.05); There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications such as recurrence rate, local effusion, fever, and 24-hour uroschesis (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Lichtenstein operation (conventional patch), Lichtenstein operation (Self-adhesive mesh), preperitoneal hernia repair are all effective in the treatment of inguinal hernias, and the three methods have certain safety. The three types of surgery have varying degrees of difference in perioperative conditions, postoperative pain, comfortability, and long-term efficacy. Therefore, the selection of specific surgical methods still needs to be analyzed according to the specific situation of patients.

表1 3组不同术式患者基本资料
表2 3组患者围手术期情况比较(±s
表3 3组患者不同时间视觉模拟评分比较(分,±s
表4 3组不同时间美国舒适状况评分比较(分,±s
表5 3组患者随访情况比较[例(%)]
[1]
Miller HJ. Inguinal hernia: mastering the anatomy[J]. Surg Clin North Am, 2018, 98(3): 607-621.
[2]
Yeap E, Pacilli M, Nataraja RM. Inguinal hernias in children[J]. Aust J Gen Pract, 2020, 49(1/2): 38-43.
[3]
HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(1): 1-165.
[4]
吴立胜, 余建伟, 李煜. 复发腹股沟疝手术方式的选择及临床疗效[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2019, 18(11): 1043-1047.
[5]
蔡宏俊, 高志强, 张鹏飞, 等. 比较Stoppa和Lichtenstein两种手术方式对老年腹股沟疝患者的疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2015,(5): 390-392
[6]
Jensen MP, Chen C, Brugger AM. Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings and change scores: a reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain[J]. J Pain, 2003, 4(7): 407-144.
[7]
Krinsky R, Murillo I, Johnson J. A practical application of Katharine Kolcaba's comfort theory to cardiac patients[J]. Appl Nurs Res, 2014, 27(2): 147-150.
[8]
陈超豪, 李春梅, 陈映鹤, 等. 勃起功能障碍患者勃起硬度评分与夜间勃起功能的关系研究[J]. 浙江医学, 2019,(18): 1994-1996.
[9]
李健文, 乐飞. 膜解剖理论在全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术中的应用[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2021, 24(7): 604-610.
[10]
Shakil A, Aparicio K, Barta E, et al. Inguinal hernias: diagnosis and management[J]. Am Fam Physician, 2020, 102(8): 487-492.
[11]
立全晰, 沈宇, 万伟, 等. 聚丙烯带网塞补片无张力修补腹股沟疝后腹壁力学和疼痛变化[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(4): 548-552.
[12]
Decker E, Currie A, Baig MK. Prolene hernia system versus Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis[J]. Hernia, 2019, 23(3): 541-546.
[13]
Franneby U, Sandblom G, Nordin P, et al. Risk factors for long-term pain after hernia surgery[J]. Ann Surg, 2006, 244(2): 212-219.
[14]
Bay-Nielsen M, Perkins FM, Kehlet H, et al. Pain and functional impairment 1 year after inguinal herniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study[J]. Ann Surg, 2001, 233(1): 1-7.
[15]
Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Ferraro SD, et al. Treatment of inguinal hernia: systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Ann Surg, 2021, 274(6): 954-961.
[16]
Siddaiah-Subramanya M, Ashrafi D, Memon B, et al. Causes of recurrence in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(6): 975-986.
[17]
Langeveld HR, Van TRM, Weidema WF, et al. Total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein(the LEVEL-Trial): a randomized controlled trial[J]. Ann Surg, 2010, 251(5): 819-824.
[18]
Schöne VU, Scheuerlein H, Settmacher U. Settmacher, diagnosis and therapy of inguinal hernia[J]. MMW Fortschr Med, 2009, 151(19): 44-49.
[19]
赵瑾, 孙小亮, 朱太阳, 等. 局部神经阻滞麻醉下无张力腹股沟疝修补术后早期疼痛的多因素分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2015, 9(4): 9-13.
[20]
Lin Y, Luo CS, Zhang GR. Preperitoneal space in inguinal hernia repair hernia[J]. Pract Cli Med, 2010, 11(5): 48-49.
[21]
Nienhuijs S, Staal E, Keemers-Gels M, et al. Pain after open preperitoneal repair versus lichtenstein repair: a randomized trial[J]. World J Surg, 2007, 31(9): 1751-1759.
[22]
Jangjoo A, Darabi Mahboub MR, Mehrabi Bahar M, et al. Sexual function after stoppa hernia repair in patients with bilateral inguinal hernia[J]. Med J Islam Repub Iran, 2014, 28: 48.
[23]
Shaukat N, Jaleel F, Jawaid M, et al. Is there difference in chronic pain after Suture and Stapler fixation method of mesh in ventral Hernia? Is stapler fixation method quicker? A randomized controlled trial[J]. Pak J Med Sci, 2018, 34(1): 175-178.
[24]
张明逸, 陈以宽. 髂腹股沟区血管解剖特点及腹腔镜下腹股沟疝无张力修补术血管损伤的应对技巧[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(3): 209-212.
[25]
Sun P, Cheng X, Deng S, et al. Mesh fixation with glue versus suture for chronic pain and recurrence in Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017, 2(2): CD010814.
[26]
燕东, 王权, 薛芙珍, 等. 开放腹膜前间隙修补术与Lichtenstein修补术治疗腹股沟疝的系统评价[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(3): 320-326.
[1] 李涛, 陈纲, 李世拥. 腹腔镜下右侧腹股沟斜疝修补术(TAPP)[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 598-598.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 朱青青, 卫贞祺. 腹股沟疝患者围手术期自我能效管理探讨[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 773-777.
[14] 戴玮, 江桂林, 车兆平, 张姣, 王星星, 赵海涛. 无缝手术护理在腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术围手术期的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 778-781.
[15] 李芳, 许瑞, 李洋洋, 石秀全. 循证医学理念在儿童腹股沟疝患者中的应用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 782-786.
阅读次数
全文


摘要