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) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (02) : 169 -174. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.02.011

临床论著

两种腹腔镜手术与Lichtenstein术治疗腹股沟斜疝的效果对比
高春燕1, 刘云娟2,(), 周鹏鹏3, 魏令珂3   
  1. 1. 215400 江苏苏州,太仓市中医医院急诊科
    2. 215400 江苏苏州,太仓市中医医院血透中心
    3. 215400 江苏苏州,太仓市中医医院肝胆外科
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-21 出版日期:2023-04-18
  • 通信作者: 刘云娟
  • 基金资助:
    江苏省卫生厅科技项目(Z2013128)

Comparison of the therapeutic effects of two kinds of laparoscopic surgery and open herniorrhaphy for indirect inguinal hernia

Chunyan Gao1, Yunjuan Liu2,(), Pengpeng Zhou3, Lingke Wei3   

  1. 1. Emergency Department, Taicang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Suzhou 215400, Jiangsu, China
    2. Hemodialysis Center, Taicang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Suzhou 215400, Jiangsu, China
    3. Hepatobiliary Surgery Department, Taicang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Suzhou 215400, Jiangsu, China
  • Received:2022-09-21 Published:2023-04-18
  • Corresponding author: Yunjuan Liu
引用本文:

高春燕, 刘云娟, 周鹏鹏, 魏令珂. 两种腹腔镜手术与Lichtenstein术治疗腹股沟斜疝的效果对比[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 169-174.

Chunyan Gao, Yunjuan Liu, Pengpeng Zhou, Lingke Wei. Comparison of the therapeutic effects of two kinds of laparoscopic surgery and open herniorrhaphy for indirect inguinal hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(02): 169-174.

目的

探讨腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术(TEP),经腹腹膜前疝修补术(TAPP)及Lichtenstein术治疗腹股沟斜疝的疗效对比。

方法

选择2019年1月至2021年12月太仓市中医院手术治疗的90名腹股沟斜疝患者作为研究对象。依据手术方法分为开放组(n=30),TAPP组(n=30),TEP组(n=30)。比较3组患者的手术相关指标(手术耗时、失血量、术后下床活动时间、肛门排气时间、总医疗费用),疼痛严重程度[采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)法于术后6 h、24 h、1个月评估],血清应激反应指标[术前及术后48 h的去甲肾上腺素(NE)、肾上腺素、促肾上腺皮质激素(ACTH)、皮质醇],术后6个月内的并发症(尿潴留、腹胀、肠梗阻、血清肿、慢性疼痛)发生情况。

结果

3组失血量、术后下床活动时间、肛门排气时间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),且TAPP组、TEP组优于开放组;手术耗时、总医疗费用开放组优于TAPP组、TEP组,术后下床活动时间、总医疗费用TEP组优于TAPP组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3组术后6、24 h的疼痛评分差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),且TAPP组、TEP组优于开放组;术后6 h疼痛评分TEP组优于TAPP组(P<0.05);3组术后1个月疼痛评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3组患者术前NE、肾上腺素、ACTH、皮质醇差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3组术后48 h的NE、肾上腺素、ACTH、皮质醇差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),且TAPP组、TEP组较开放组低,其中NE、皮质醇术后48 h,TEP组低于TAPP组(P<0.05)。3组术后6个月内并发症发生率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),TAPP组、TEP组较开放组并发症发生率明显降低。TAPP组与TEP组比较,差异无统计学意义。

结论

应用TAPP、TEP、Lichtenstein术治疗腹股沟疝各有优势,临床需要依据患者的具体情况进行选择。

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal hernia repair (TEP), trans-abdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) and open hernia repair in the treatment of indirect inguinal hernia.

Methods

90 patients with indirect inguinal hernia who were treated in Taicang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were selected as the study subjects. All patients were divided into three groups according to different surgical methods, including open group (n=30), TAPP group (n=30), and TEP group (n=30). The operation related indexes (operation time, blood loss, time to get out of bed after operation, anus exhaust time, and total medical expenses) of the three groups were compared. The pain severity [visual analog scale (VAS)] of patients in the three groups was compared at 6, 24 h and 1 month after operation. The serum stress response indexes [noradrenaline (NE), adrenaline, adrenergic rash stimulating hormone (ACTH), cortisol] of the three groups were compared before and 48 hours after operation. The complication indicators (urinary retention, flatulence, intestinal obstruction, seroma, chronic pain) of the three groups were compared within 6 months after surgery.

Results

The differences of blood loss, time of getting out of bed after operation, anal exhaust time of the three groups were statistically significant (P<0.05), and TAPP group and TEP group were better than open group. The operation time and total medical expenses of the open group were better than those of the TAPP group and the TEP group. The time to get out of bed after operation and total medical expenses in TEP group were significantly better than those in TAPP group (P<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the pain scores of the three groups at 6 h and 24 h after operation (P<0.05), and TAPP group and TEP group were better than open group. The pain score of TEP group was better than that of TAPP group at 6 hours after operation (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the pain scores among the three groups at 1 month after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the level of NE, adrenaline, ACTH and cortisol among the three groups before operation (P>0.05). At 48 h after operation, the level of NE, adrenaline, ACTH and cortisol in the three groups were statistically significant (P<0.05), and the levels in TAPP group and TEP group were lower than those in open group. At 48 h after operation, the level of NE and cortisol in TEP group was lower than those in the TAPP group (P<0.05). The difference of complication data within 6 months after operation among the three groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). The incidence of complications in TAPP group and TEP group was significantly lower than that in open group. There was no significant difference between TAPP group and TEP group.

Conclusion

In the treatment of patients with inguinal hernia, TAPP, TEP and open surgery have their own advantages, clinical selection should be made according to the patient's condition.

表1 3组患者一般资料比较[例(%)]
表2 3组患者手术情况相关指标(±s
表3 3组患者术后不同时间点的疼痛视觉模拟评分比较(分,±s
表4 3组患者术前以及术后48 h应激反应指标比较(±s
表5 3组患者术后6个月内并发症发生率比较[例(%)]
[1]
刘吉平, 张国胜, 高志伟. 腹腔镜经腹腔腹膜前腹股沟疝修补联合腹股沟小切口治疗特殊类型腹股沟疝[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2022, 22(7): 599-602.
[2]
李欣. 改良完全腹膜外腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术、经腹腔腹膜前腹腔镜疝修补术与Rutkow术式治疗腹股沟疝效果对比[J]. 医学理论与实践, 2022, 35(13): 2241-2243.
[3]
胡雄威, 罗宏宇, 李国权. 经腹腔腹膜前修补术与全腹膜外修补术治疗腹股沟疝的对比研究[J]. 基层医学论坛, 2022, 26(20): 1-3, 6.
[4]
Chen LS, Chen WC, Kang YN, et al. Effects of transabdominal preperitoneal and totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: an update systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Surg Endosc, 2019, 33(2): 418-428.
[5]
唐迎泉, 向进见, 李键, 等. 4K高清镜下层面解剖联合TEP治疗老年腹股沟疝的临床效果[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2022, 42(8): 1869-1872.
[6]
于鹏, 段绍斌. 腹股沟疝合并子宫圆韧带囊肿日间手术的临床应用[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2022, 27(5): 367-370.
[7]
王长起. 开放性前入路腹膜前无张力修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝[J]. 实用中西医结合临床, 2022, 22(5): 26-28, 35.
[8]
李立全. 无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效[J]. 中国医药指南, 2021, 19(1): 42-43.
[9]
唐楠. 老年腹股沟疝患者腹腔镜修补术后血清肿相关因素[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2022, 42(4): 865-868.
[10]
王双辉, 李彦宁, 刘红彬, 等. 开放式与腹腔镜下腹股沟疝修补术治疗132例腹股沟疝患者临床疗效研究[J]. 中国中西医结合外科杂志, 2022, 28(3): 311-313.
[11]
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]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2018, 21(7): 721-724.
[12]
大中华腔镜疝外科学院, 中华医学会外科学分会腹腔镜与内镜外科学组, 中华医学会外科学分会疝和腹壁外科学组. 腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术规范化操作指南[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2013, 7(5): 505-512.
[13]
中华医学会外科学分会疝和腹壁外科学组, 中华医学会外科学分会腹腔镜与内镜外科学组, 大中华腔镜疝外科学院. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝手术操作指南(2017版) [J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2017, 37(11): 1238-1242.
[14]
邓倩, 徐琳. 疼痛管理干预在中晚期宫颈癌患者中的应用及对VAS评分的影响[J]. 国际护理学杂志, 2022, 41(13): 2448-2451.
[15]
赵鑫, 韩威, 刘鹏, 等. 腹腔镜下腹股沟疝修补术后尿潴留发生特征及影响因素分析[J]. 中国煤炭工业医学杂志, 2018, 21(4): 398-402.
[16]
吕爱琳, 王振怡, 陈川荆, 等. 腹部手术患者切口感染的病原菌特点及影响因素分析[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2019, 29: 880-883.
[17]
Morales-Conde S. A new classification for seroma after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair[J]. Hernia, 2012, 16(3): 261-267.
[18]
曹羽, 龚航军, 韩刚, 等. 单侧腹股沟斜疝完全剥离疝囊术和横断疝囊术治疗的效果观察[J]. 现代消化及介入诊疗, 2022, 27(4): 497-500.
[19]
孙飞, 申庆宏, 王兵华, 等. 对比腹腔镜与开放手术在成人腹股沟疝中的治疗效果[J]. 中外医疗, 2022, 41(7): 48-51.
[20]
徐美玲, 陈莉. 日间手术模式下腹股沟疝患者出院准备度影响因素分析[J]. 现代消化及介入诊疗, 2022, 27(1): 63-67.
[21]
谢天皓, 任项项, 哈思宁, 等. 腹股沟疝无张力修补术后补片相关内脏并发症的研究进展[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2022, 21(9): 1240-1246.
[22]
周小平, 谢清. L型腔镜拉钩辅助经腹膜前疝修补术治疗老年人巨大腹股沟疝的临床研究[J]. 中华老年医学杂志, 2022, 41(5): 570-573.
[23]
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.
[24]
蔡绍海, 台德军, 姜峰. 腹腔镜TAPP和TEP在老年腹股沟疝中的临床应用[J]. 现代科学仪器, 2021, 38(6): 129-132.
[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