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 (06) : 682 -686. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2022.06.016

临床论著

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前与疝环充填式修补术治疗腹股沟疝对比分析
任伙明1,(), 苏舒1, 张健1, 范彬1   
  1. 1. 234000 安徽省, 宿州市第一人民医院普外一科
  • 收稿日期:2022-04-05 出版日期:2022-12-18
  • 通信作者: 任伙明
  • 基金资助:
    2021年度安徽省卫生健康委科研项目立项项目(AHWJ2021a033)

Comparative analysis of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal and hernia ring filling repair for inguinal hernia

Huoming Ren1,(), Shu Su1, Jian Zhang1, Bin Fan1   

  1. 1. First Department of General Surgery, Suzhou First People's Hospital, Suzhou 234000, Anhui Province, China
  • Received:2022-04-05 Published:2022-12-18
  • Corresponding author: Huoming Ren
引用本文:

任伙明, 苏舒, 张健, 范彬. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前与疝环充填式修补术治疗腹股沟疝对比分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(06): 682-686.

Huoming Ren, Shu Su, Jian Zhang, Bin Fan. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal and hernia ring filling repair for inguinal hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(06): 682-686.

目的

分析腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(TAPP)与疝环充填式无张力修补术治疗腹股沟疝患者的疗效及经济学效益。

方法

2017年1月至2021年2月宿州市第一人民医院普外科收治的腹股沟疝患者100例,采用随机数字表法分为对照组与试验组,各50例。对照组行疝环充填式无张力修补术,试验组行TAPP术,2组均随访至出院。分析2组围手术期指标、不同时间点疼痛程度及生活质量,术前、术后1 d炎症反应及氧化应激指标,住院期间并发症发生情况,经济学效益(住院时间、住院费用)。

结果

组间比较试验组术中出血量更少,手术、术后下床活动、术后胃肠功能恢复以及术后恢复正常活动时间更短(P<0.05)。术后6 h、24 h、48 h,2组疼痛视觉模拟评分量表(VAS)得分呈降低趋势,但试验组更低(P<0.05);2组简易健康调查简表36(SF-36)得分呈升高趋势,但试验组更高(P<0.05)。术后1 d 2组血清肿瘤坏死因子-α、C反应蛋白、白介素-6、丙二醛水平较术前升高,但试验组更低(P<0.05);术后1 d 2组血清超氧化物歧化酶水平较术前降低,但试验组更高(P<0.05)。术后住院期间试验组并发症发生率较对照组更低(8.00% vs 34.00%,P<0.05)。试验组住院时间短于对照组,住院费用高于对照组(P<0.05)。

结论

相较疝环充填式无张力修补术,TAPP术治疗腹股沟疝可降低患者手术创伤,促进术后康复,缓解疼痛并改善患者生活质量,分析与其降低机体炎症反应及氧化应激有关,但住院费用更高,临床可考虑患者病情及经济情况选择治疗方式。

Objective

To analyze the efficacy and economic benefit of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal prosthesis (TAPP) and hernia ring filling tension-free repair in the treatment of patients with inguinal hernias.

Methods

From January 2017 to February 2021, 100 patients with inguinal hernias who were admitted to the General Surgery Department of Suzhou First People's Hospital were divided into the control group and the research group, with 50 cases in each group. The method used was the random number table method. The control group received hernia ring filling for tension-free repair, and the research group received TAPP. Both groups were followed up until discharge. The perioperative indicators, pain and quality of life at different time points, inflammatory response and oxidative stress indicators before and 1 d after surgery, the incidence of complications during hospitalization, and economic benefits (hospitalization time, hospitalization costs) were compared between the two groups.

Results

The intraoperative blood loss in the research group was lower in the two groups, and the time of surgery, postoperative ambulation, postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery, and postoperative return to normal activities was shorter in the two groups (P<0.05). At 6 h, 24 h, and 48 h after surgery, the scores of visual analog scale (VAS) of the two groups showed a decreasing trend, and the research group was lower in the two groups (P<0.05), the scores of short form36 (SF-36) showed an increasing trend, and the research group was higher between the two group (P<0.05). 1 d after surgery, the serum levels of tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), C-reactive protein (CPR), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and malondialdehyde (MDA) in the two groups were higher than those before surgery, but the research group was lower in the two groups (P<0.05); the serum level of superoxide dismutase (SOD) in the two groups were lower than those before surgery, but the research group was higher in the two groups (P<0.05). The incidence of complications in the research group during hospitalization was lower (8.00% vs 34.00%, P<0.05). The length of hospitalization time in the research group was shorter than that in the control group, and the hospitalization costs were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with hernia ring filling tension-free repair, TAPP in the treatment of inguinal hernias could reduce surgical trauma, promote postoperative recovery of patients, relieve pain, and improve the quality of life of patients, however, the cost of hospitalization was higher, and the treatment method could be selected considering the patient's condition and economic situation.

表1 2组一般资料比较
表2 2组围手术期指标比较(±s
表3 2组术后不同时间点疼痛及生活质量比较(分,±s
表4 2组手术前后炎症反应及氧化应激指标比较(±s
表5 2组术后住院期间并发症发生情况比较[例(%)]
[1]
Tazaki T, Sasaki M, Kohyama M, et al. Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair for recurrent groin hernia after failed anterior-posterior repair[J]. Asian J Endosc Surg, 2021, 14(3): 470-477.
[2]
林福利. 腹腔镜下经腹腹膜前间隙疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝685例体会[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2021, 29(2): 186-187.
[3]
唐健雄, 李绍杰, 李绍春. 对我国疝与腹壁外科专业发展的思考[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2021, 20(1): 98-101.
[4]
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/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 244-246.
[5]
Chiarotto A, Maxwell LJ, Ostelo RW, et al. Measurement properties of visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and pain severity subscale of the brief pain inventory in patients with low back pain: a systematic review[J]. J Pain, 2019, 20(3): 245-263.
[6]
Liu S, Zhou X, Dai H, et al. Assessing health-related quality of life of living kidney donors using the 36-item medical outcomes short-form-36 questionnaire: a meta-analysis[J]. Psychol Health Med, 2021, 26(8): 917-930.
[7]
吴浩瀚, 吴文涌, 张顺, 等. 腹腔镜下不同术式和开放手术疝修补术对腹股沟疝治疗效果的前瞻性随机对照研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(1): 35-39.
[8]
黄翠景, 吴永丰, 刘兴洲. 无张力疝修补术与腹腔镜全腹膜外疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的临床效果及安全性评价[J]. 中国医刊, 2021, 56(4): 439-442.
[9]
李厚泽, 綦晓龙. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术中缝合疝缺损联合负压引流的应用价值[J]. 成都医学院学报, 2021, 16(3): 337-340.
[10]
张昕, 顾远辉, 李小飞, 等. 腹腔镜TAPP术和"两针"连续腹膜缝合技术在腹股沟疝修补术中的应用[J]. 中国现代普通外科进展, 2021, 24(5): 357-359, 363.
[11]
苟宇峰, 张岳, 李恒. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术与经腹腹膜前疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床效观察[J]. 贵州医药, 2021, 45(1): 69-70.
[12]
刘立, 尹作文, 喻军, 等. 腹腔镜下腹股沟疝修补术与开放无张力疝修补术临床疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(3): 236-239.
[13]
田瑞雪, 邹永红. 三种成人腹股沟疝修补术手术并发症比较及其影响因素分析[J]. 医学临床研究, 2021, 38(9): 1385-1388.
[14]
牛斌, 仇明洋, 李强. 改良TEP、TAPP与Rutkow术式治疗腹股沟疝的疗效及安全性分析[J]. 临床和实验医学杂志, 2021, 20(10): 1098-1101.
[15]
陈明, 陈云, 李昕. TEP与TAPP治疗小儿腹股沟疝的临床效果及血清炎性因子变化分析[J]. 临床和实验医学杂志, 2021, 20(9): 983-986.
[16]
李国权, 罗宏宇, 刘小飞. 腹腔镜下TAPP联合3D-MAX补片治疗老年腹股沟疝的近期疗效[J]. 安徽医学, 2021, 42(10): 1087-1091.
[17]
史桂宝, 黄其根, 赵华, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术和腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(3): 254-256.
[18]
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.
[19]
董天雄, 余壮明. TAPP和Kugel术式治疗成人腹股沟疝的对比研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(5): 485-488.
[1] 燕速, 霍博文. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治性切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 13-13.
[2] 母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 郭兵, 王万里, 何凯, 黄汉生. 腹腔镜下肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 143-143.
[14] 李凯, 陈淋, 苏怀东, 向涵, 张伟. 超微创器械在改良单孔腹腔镜巨大肝囊肿开窗引流及胆囊切除中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 144-144.
[15] 魏丽霞, 张安澜, 周宝勇, 李明. 腹腔镜下Ⅲb型肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 145-145.
阅读次数
全文


摘要