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) : 334 -337. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.03.020

临床论著

腹腔镜疝修补术与开放无张力修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效
赵今1, 张碧涛2, 刘杲3,()   
  1. 1. 445099 湖北省恩施土家族苗族自治州中心医院手术室
    2. 445099 湖北省恩施土家族苗族自治州中心医院胃肠外科
    3. 445099 湖北省恩施土家族苗族自治州中心医院结直肠肛门外科
  • 收稿日期:2021-11-23 出版日期:2022-06-20
  • 通信作者: 刘杲

The effect of laparoscopic hernia repair and open tension-free repair in the treatment of inguinal hernia

Jin Zhao1, Bitao Zhang2, Gao Liu3,()   

  1. 1. Operating Room, Hubei Province Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture Central Hospital, Enshi 445099, Hubei Province, China
    2. Gastrointestinal Surgery, Hubei Province Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture Central Hospital, Enshi 445099, Hubei Province, China
    3. Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Hubei Province Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture Central Hospital, Enshi 445099, Hubei Province, China
  • Received:2021-11-23 Published:2022-06-20
  • Corresponding author: Gao Liu
引用本文:

赵今, 张碧涛, 刘杲. 腹腔镜疝修补术与开放无张力修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 334-337.

Jin Zhao, Bitao Zhang, Gao Liu. The effect of laparoscopic hernia repair and open tension-free repair in the treatment of inguinal hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(03): 334-337.

目的

探讨腹腔镜疝修补术与无张力修补术治疗腹股沟疝的效果比较。

方法

选取2018年1月至2020年12月于恩施土家族苗族自治州中心医院就诊的腹股沟疝患者320例,以随机数字表分为腔镜组和开放组,每组患者160例。腔镜组行腹腔镜下疝修补术治疗,开放组以无张力修补术进行治疗。对比2组患者的手术出血量、手术时间、切口长度、切口美观评分、住院时间、下床活动时间、第一次排气时间、住院费用、术后并发症情况及治疗效果。

结果

与开放组比较,腔镜组患者手术出血量少、手术时间短及切口长度短(P<0.05),切口美观评分明显高于开放组(P<0.05),住院时间、下床活动时间、第一次排气时间均明显短于开放组,但在住院费用方面明显高于开放组(P<0.05)。治疗后2组患者的复发率、治愈率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);腔镜组患者的总并发症发生率(5.00%)明显低于开放组(19.38%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

相较于开放式无张力修补术,腹腔镜疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝能减少手术中的出血量,手术用时少,切口长度小的特点,且术后患者下床活动时间更早,疼痛持续的时间少,还能缩短住院时间,手术后出现的并发症也较低,但住院费用较高。

Objective

To compare the effects of laparoscopic hernia repair and open tension-free repair in the treatment of inguinal hernia.

Methods

A total of 320 inguinal hernia patients in Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture Central Hospital from January 2018 to December 2020 were selected and divided into laparoscopic group (160 cases) and open group (160 cases) using random number table method. The laparoscopic group underwent laparoscopic hernia repair. The open group was treated with tension-free hernia repair. The surgical blood loss, operation time, incision length, incision aesthetic score, hospital stay, ambulation time, first exhaust time, hospitalization expenses, postoperative complications, treatment effect were compared between the two groups.

Results

Compared with the open group, patients in the laparoscopic group had less surgical bleeding, short operative time and short incision length (P<0.05). The incision aesthetics score of the laparoscopic group was significantly higher than that of the open group (P<0.05), and the hospitalized time, time to get out of bed, and the first exhaust time were significantly shorter than those of the open group, but the hospitalization costs were significantly higher than that of the open group (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference in the recurrence rate and cure rate between the two groups after operation (P>0.05). The total complication rate in the laparoscopic group (5.00%) was significantly lower than that in the open group (19.38%), and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with open tension-free repair, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair can reduce the amount of bleeding during the operation, with less operation time and small incision length, and the patient gets out of bed earlier after the operation. It can shorten the duration of pain and the length of hospitalization, reduces complications after surgery, but has higher hospital costs.

表1 2组患者的手术情况(±s
表2 2组患者术后情况比较(±s
表3 2组患者的并发症情况[例(%)]
[1]
Sürek A, Bozkurt MA, Ferahman S, et al. Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair under epidural anesthesia versus general anesthesia[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2020, 30(5): 471-475.
[2]
Altin O, Kaya S. Comparison of total extraperitoneal laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair between elderly and non-elderly patients[J]. Int J Gerontol, 2020, 14(2): 115-118.
[3]
陈思梦. 急诊腹股沟疝治疗策略[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2017, 37(11): 1218-1223.
[4]
章由贤, 徐瀚斌, 朱以祥, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟嵌顿疝的临床疗效[J]. 安徽医学, 2019, 40(3): 302-304.
[5]
赵文增, 刘荣红, 王海刚, 等. 腹股沟疝患者行腹腔镜疝修补治疗效果分析[J]. 河北医药, 2018, 40(10): 1549-1551.
[6]
郑辉明, 戴育坚, 王英俊, 等. 腹腔镜微创手术治疗中老年腹股沟嵌顿疝的疗效分析[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2017, 26(10): 1247-1252.
[7]
中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组, 中国医师协会外科医师分会疝和腹壁外科医师委员会. 成人腹股沟疝诊断和治疗指南(2018年版)[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2018, 38(7): 704-706.
[8]
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.
[9]
包蔚雷, 朱春富. 青少年腹股沟斜疝治疗现状[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2013, 7(6): 524-525.
[10]
苏杰, 冯振声, 孙奇, 等. 无张力修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝临床效果探讨[J]. 中华老年医学杂志, 2018, 37(5): 558-560.
[11]
王步云, 雷磊. 疝气无张力修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝患者的效果[J]. 实用临床医药杂志, 2020, 24(8): 104-106.
[12]
王晨光, 徐臣炎, 谢昊玮, 等. 腹股沟嵌顿疝无张力修补疗效观察[J]. 腹部外科, 2017, 30(6): 475-478.
[13]
Deal S, Stefanidis D, Brunt L, et al. An overwhelming majority of public domain, surgical videos of laparoscopic cholecystectomy do not demonstrate the critical view of safety[J]. HPB, 2017, 19(1): S71.
[14]
付月云, 王红旭, 陈志权, 等. 完全腹膜外腹腔镜下疝修补术与无张力疝修补术疗效比较[J]. 中国现代医药杂志, 2015, 17(5): 53-55.
[15]
吴川江, 吴曦. 经脐单孔腹腔镜下全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术的安全性及有效性探讨[J]. 实用医院临床杂志, 2017, 14(4): 179-181.
[16]
郭自成, 孟相真, 杨福全. 单孔腹腔镜全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术的效果探讨[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2017, 22(7): 552-555.
[17]
周志刚, 杨兵. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝无张力修补术对成人腹股沟疝的治疗效果研究[J]. 川北医学院学报, 2017, 32(6): 915-917.
[18]
陈双, 周太成. 组织缝合修补和补片修补的利弊再认识[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2017, 37(11): 1227-1230.
[19]
黄锦荣, 肖吓鹏, 李翰城, 等. 腹腔镜下完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术的临床应用[J]. 海南医学, 2019, 30(1): 51-53.
[20]
马人杰, 贺琦, 张海伟, 等. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外补片植入术治疗腹股沟疝的近期疗效及安全性观察[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2018, 26(11): 862-864.
[21]
郭岗, 耿红超. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术对腹股沟疝患者术后康复及复发率的影响[J]. 中国疗养医学, 2019, 28(1): 65-67.
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[9] 李博, 贾蓬勃, 李栋, 李小庆. ERCP与LCBDE治疗胆总管结石继发急性重症胆管炎的效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 60-63.
[10] 韩戟, 杨力, 陈玉. 腹部形态CT参数与完全腹腔镜全胃切除术术中失血量的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[11] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[12] 冯旺, 马振中, 汤林花. CT扫描三维重建在肝内胆管细胞癌腹腔镜肝切除术中的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 104-107.
[13] 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.
[14] 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.
[15] 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.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?