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) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (04) : 389 -393. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.04.004

临床论著

腹股沟区压迫装置对腹股沟疝手术后生活质量及血清肿发生率影响的研究
刘雨辰1, 赵凤林1, 梁晓宁2, 王明刚1,†()   
  1. 1. 100043　首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院疝和腹壁外科
    2. 100043　首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院超声科
  • 收稿日期:2022-03-13 出版日期:2022-08-18
  • 通信作者: 王明刚

Study of effect for inguinal compression device on quality of life and incidence of seroma after inguinal hernia repair

Yuchen Liu1, Fenglin Zhao1, Xiaoning Liang2, Minggang Wang1,†()   

  1. 1. Department of Hernia and Abdominal Surgery, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100043, China
    2. Department of Ultrasound, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100043, China
  • Received:2022-03-13 Published:2022-08-18
  • Corresponding author: Minggang Wang
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

刘雨辰, 赵凤林, 梁晓宁, 王明刚. 腹股沟区压迫装置对腹股沟疝手术后生活质量及血清肿发生率影响的研究[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(04): 389-393.

Yuchen Liu, Fenglin Zhao, Xiaoning Liang, Minggang Wang. Study of effect for inguinal compression device on quality of life and incidence of seroma after inguinal hernia repair[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(04): 389-393.

目的

观察压迫装置对腹股沟疝手术患者术后生活质量及并发症的影响。

方法

观察分析首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院进行腹股沟疝日间手术80例患者的临床资料，其中腹腔镜手术53例，开放手术27例，全部患者手术后采用加压装置对手术区域进行加压，分析患者术后疼痛评分、卡罗来纳舒适量表生活质量评分（CCS）及血清肿相关情况。

结果

腹腔镜组和开放组患者的术后1周CCS评分分别为（25.88±5.77）和（27.32±6.23）分，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。开放组与腹腔镜组使用加压装置前的2组的疼痛评分分别为（5.12±1.41）和（4.53±1.62）分，使用加压装置当天疼痛评分分别为（3.54±0.67）和（3.55±0.72）分，术后7 d的疼痛评分分别为（1.19±0.21）和（1.09±0.19）分，差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。手术当天使用加压装置后能够改善患者的疼痛程度，对术后加压装置整体评估满意度2组患者分别为90.56%和85.19%，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。2组患者血清肿发生率比较，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。

结论

压迫装置能够改善腹股沟疝患者术后疼痛情况并且提升术后生活质量，患者的整体使用满意度较高，并且对症状性血清肿的预防能够起到一定的预防作用。

关键词: 疝，腹股沟, 压迫, 生活质量, 疼痛, 血清肿
Objective

To observe the effect of compression device on postoperative quality of life and complications of patients undergoing inguinal hernia surgery.

Methods

A total of 80 patients undergoing inguinal hernia day surgery in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital affiliated to Capital Medical University were observed and analyzed, including 53 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery and 27 patients undergoing open surgery. All patients were pressurized with a compression device to the operation area after surgery. Postoperative pain score, Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) and seroma were analyzed.

Results

The CCS scores of the laparoscopic group and the open group were (25.88±5.77) and (27.32±6.23) points at 1 week after surgery, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The pain scores before the use of compression device were (5.12±1.41) points in the open group and (4.53±1.62) points in the laparoscopic group, the pain scores of the two groups on the day using the compression device were (3.54±0.67) and (3.55±0.72) points, respectively, and the pain scores of the two groups on the 7 days after the operation were (1.19±0.21) and (1.09±0.19) points, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The use of compression devices on the day of surgery could improve the pain degree of patients. The overall satisfaction of the evaluation of postoperative compression devices was 90.56% and 85.19% in the two groups, respectively, with no significant statistical difference (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of seroma between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Compression device can improve the postoperative pain of patients with inguinal hernia and improve the postoperative quality of life, the overall satisfaction of patients was high, and it can play a certain role in the prevention of symptomatic seroma.

Key words: Hernia, Inguinal, Compression, Quality of life, Pain, Seroma
表1 2组患者一般资料比较
组别 例数 性别[例(%)] 年龄(岁,±s) 体质量指数(kg/m2, ±s) 斜疝/直疝/股疝[例(%)] 原发/复发[例(%)]
男性 女
腹腔镜组 53 47(88.68) 6(11.32) 47.80±11.44 19.11±2.33 33(62.26)/19(35.85)/1(1.89) 51(96.23)/2(3.77)
开放组 27 24(88.89) 3(11.11) 48.19±12.21 18.90±2.19 16(59.26)/11(40.74)/0(0) 26(96.30)/1(3.70)
t/χ2值   0.514 0.174 2.321 3.928 2.814
P值   0.682 0.392 0.371 0.779 0.398
表2 2组患者术后评分情况比较（分，±s）
组别 例数 使用加压装置前疼痛评分 使用加压装置后疼痛评分 术后7d疼痛评分 术后7 d卡罗来纳生活质量评分
腹腔镜组 53 5.12±1.41 3.54±0.67a 1.19±0.21 25.88±5.77
开放组 27 4.53±1.62 3.55±0.72a 1.09±0.19 27.32±6.23
t值   0.340 -0.089 1.745 0.808
P值   0.441 0.429 0.434 0.202
图1 本研究患者补片异物感的卡罗来纳生活质量评分
图2 本研究患者疼痛感的卡罗来纳生活质量评分
图3 本研究患者动作受限感的卡罗来纳生活质量评分
表3 2组对术后加压装置的使用评估情况满意度比较[例（%）]
组别 例数 10分 7~9分 5~6分 1~4分 0分 满意率
腹腔镜组 53 16(30.19) 32(60.38) 5(9.43) 0(0) 0(0) 48(90.56)a
开放组 27 9(33.33) 14(51.85) 3(11.11) 1(3.70) 0(0) 23(85.19)
表4 2组患者术后血清肿发生率比较[例（%）]
组别 例数 0型 Ⅰ型 Ⅱ型 Ⅲ型 Ⅳ型 血清肿发生率
腹腔镜组 53 39(73.59) 8(15.09) 4(7.55) 2(3.77) 0(0) 14(26.42)a
开放组 27 19(70.37) 4(14.81) 3(11.11) 1(3.70) 0(0) 8(29.63)
[1]
GBD 2015 Healthcare Access and Quality Collaborators. Healthcare Access and Quality Index based on mortality from causes amenable to personal health care in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2015: a novel analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015[J]. Lancet, 2017, 390(10091): 231-266.
[2]
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.
[3]
唐健雄，顾岩，黄磊, 等. 复杂系统科学论评价现代疝与腹壁外科[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2022, 21(1): 62-65.
[4]
Wright R, Born DE, D'Souza N, et al. Why do inguinal hernia patients have pain? Histology points to compression neuropathy[J]. Am J Surg, 2017, 213(5): 975-982.
[5]
Christoffersen MW, Rosenberg J, Jorgensen LN, et al. Health-related quality of life scores changes significantly within the first three months after hernia mesh repair[J]. World J Surg, 2014, 38(7): 1852-1859.
[6]
LeBlanc K, Dickens E, Gonzalez A, et al. Prospective, multicenter, pairwise analysis of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair with open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: early results from the Prospective Hernia Study[J]. Hernia, 2020, 24(5): 1069-1081.
[7]
黄洪亮，唐黎明. 腹腔镜疝修补技术治疗老年腹股沟疝的临床效果及对生活质量的影响[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2018, 38(23): 5739-5741.
[8]
刘竞, Savu Michelle, 智迎辉, 等. 机器人辅助腹腔镜经腹膜前间隙腹股沟疝修补术的临床分析[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2020, 100(36): 2858-2860.
[9]
缪传文，陈德键. 日间手术模式下腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术规范化实践及与开放手术对比分析[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2020, 40(5): 582-585.
[10]
张义丹，胡豫，许栋, 等. 三级公立医院高质量发展的内涵要义与实施重点探讨[J]. 中国医院管理, 2021, 41(10): 1-3.
[11]
HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(1): 1-165.
[12]
王俭，蒋媛，时娟, 等. 腹腔镜与开腹无张力腹股沟疝修补术后切口盐袋压迫的效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(2): 135-138.
[13]
Gao D, Wei S, Zhai C, et al. Clinical research of preperitoneal drainage after endoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair[J]. Hernia, 2015, 19(5): 789-794.
[14]
高超，闫治波，王明刚, 等. 压迫治疗对单侧腹股沟疝无张力修补术后发生血清肿影响的倾向评分匹配分析[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2020, 19(7): 742-750.
[15]
Köckerling F, Bittner R, Adolf D, et al. Seroma following transabdominal preperitoneal patch plasty(TAPP): incidence, risk factors, and preventive measures[J]. Surg Endosc, 2018, 32(5): 2222-2231.
[16]
Misra MC, Bhowate PD, Bansal VK, et al. Massive Scrotal Hernias: Problems and Solutions[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2009, 19(1): 19-22.
[17]
Azoury SC, Rodriguez-Unda N, Soares KC, et al. The effect of TISSEEL fibrin sealant on seroma formation following complex abdominal wall hernia repair: a single institutional review and derived cost analysis[J]. Hernia, 2015, 19(6): 935-942.
[18]
中国医师协会外科医师分会疝和腹壁外科学组，中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组，全国卫生产业企业管理协会疝和腹壁外科产业及临床研究分会, 等. 腹股沟疝日间手术规范化流程专家共识(2020版)[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2020, 19(7): 714-719.
[1] 刘嘉嘉, 王承华, 陈绪娇, 刘瑗玲, 王善钰, 屈海花, 张莉. 经阴道子宫-输卵管实时三维超声造影中患者疼痛发生情况及其影响因素分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2023, 20(09): 959-965.
[2] 吴畏, 吴永哲, 李宗倍, 崔宏力, 李华志, 许臣. 轻质大网孔补片腹腔镜下疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的疗效及炎症因子的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 70-73.
[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] 王小娜, 谭微, 李悦, 姜文艳. 预测性护理对结直肠癌根治术患者围手术期生活质量、情绪及并发症的影响[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 525-529.
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