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 (03) : 295 -298. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.03.012

论著

疝环填充与Lichtenstein手术对老年腹股沟疝的疗效
陈杰, 石秀全()   
  1. 236200 安徽阜阳,颍上县人民医院普外科
  • 收稿日期:2022-12-29 出版日期:2023-06-18
  • 通信作者: 石秀全

Effect of hernia ring filling surgery versus Lichtenstein surgery in elderly patients with inguinal hernia

Jie Chen, Xiuquan Shi()   

  1. General Surgery Department, Yingshang County People's Hospital, Fuyang 236200, Anhui, China
  • Received:2022-12-29 Published:2023-06-18
  • Corresponding author: Xiuquan Shi
引用本文:

陈杰, 石秀全. 疝环填充与Lichtenstein手术对老年腹股沟疝的疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 295-298.

Jie Chen, Xiuquan Shi. Effect of hernia ring filling surgery versus Lichtenstein surgery in elderly patients with inguinal hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(03): 295-298.

目的

探讨疝环填充手术与Lichtenstein手术对老年腹股沟疝患者的治疗效果。

方法

回顾性分析2019年12月至2021年12月在颍上县人民医院普外科接受腹股沟疝手术治疗的老年患者106例的资料。依据手术方法分为对照组(53例,采用疝环填充术式)和观察组(53例,采用Lichtenstein术式)。比较2组的手术情况相关指标、疼痛情况指标(视觉模拟评分法评估术后24、72 h及1个月的疼痛严重程度)、术后并发症指标(切口感染、阴囊水肿、伤口血肿、肺部感染、尿潴留、睾丸炎、急性疼痛、慢性疼痛等)。比较2组术前及出院时的生活质量(SF-36量表)。

结果

2组的手术耗时、失血量、术后下床活动时间、总住院时间比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组术后24、72 h的疼痛评分均低于对照组(P<0.05),2组术后1个月的疼痛评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组术后各类并发症发生情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组术前SF-36评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);出院时,2组SF-36评分均明显增加(P<0.05),观察组评分高于对照组(P<0.05)。

结论

在老年腹股沟疝开放式手术治疗中,疝环填充与Lichtenstein术式均可以取得良好的治疗效果及安全性,Lichtenstein术式更有利于改善患者术后短期内的疼痛程度及生活质量。

Objective

To explore the effect of hernia ring filling surgery and Lichtenstein surgery in the treatment of elderly patients with inguinal hernia.

Methods

Data of 106 elderly patients who underwent inguinal hernia surgery in the Department of general surgery of Yingshang County People's Hospital from December 2019 to December 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. According to the surgical methods, 53 elderly patients with hernia ring filling were divided into control group and 53 elderly patients with Lichtenstein operation were divided into observation group. The operation related indicators, pain indicators (pain severity at 24 hours, 72 hours, and 1 month after operation. Visual analogue scale), and postoperative complications indicators (incision infection, scrotal edema, wound hematoma, pulmonary infection, urinary retention, orchitis, acute pain and chronic pain) were compared between the two groups. The quality of life of the two groups before operation and at discharge (SF-36 scale) were compared.

Results

There was no significant difference in operation time, blood loss, postoperative ambulation time and total hospital stay between the two groups (P>0.05). The pain scores of the observation group at 24 hours and 72 hours after operation were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in pain scores between the two groups at one month after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in SF-36 scores between the two groups before operation (P>0.05). At discharge, SF-36 scores in both groups increased significantly (P<0.05). The SF-36 score in the observation group at discharge was higher than that in the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

In the open surgical treatment of elderly patients with inguinal hernia, hernia ring filling and Lichtenstein operation can both achieve good therapeutic effects and safety. Lichtenstein operation is more conducive to improving the short-term postoperative pain and quality of life of patients.

表1 2组患者一般资料比较[例(%)]
表2 2组患者手术情况相关指标比较(±s
表3 2组患者不同时间疼痛评分比较(分,±s
表4 2组术后并发症情况比较[例(%)]
表5 2组患者术前以及出院时的SF-36评分变化情况比较(分,±s
[1]
Fafaj A, Lo Menzo E, Alaedeen D, et al. Effect of Intraoperative Urinary Catheter Use on Postoperative Urinary Retention After Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial [J]. JAMA Surg, 2022, 157(8): 667-674.
[2]
Miller BT, Prabhu AS, Petro CC, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair: 1- and 2-year outcomes from the RIVAL trial [J]. Surg Endosc, 2023, 37(1): 723-728.
[3]
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.
[4]
Yu M, Xie WX, Li S, et al. Meta-analysis of mesh-plug repair and Lichtenstein repair in the treatment of primary inguinal hernia[J]. Updates Surg, 2021, 73(4): 1297-1306.
[5]
赵玲锋, 马玉亮, 金伟飞. 细节管理对老年腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术患者预后的影响[J]. 中国基层医药, 2021, 28(11): 1711-1714.
[6]
赵永奎, 李辰焰, 王海磊.腹腔镜下经腹腹膜前修补术及Lichtenstein疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的临床疗效[J/OL].中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(6): 625-627.
[7]
冯学书, 陈大敏, 朱铭玉, 等.三种疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝患者的临床疗效比较[J/OL].中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(1): 104-107.
[8]
HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(1): 1-165.
[9]
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]. 中华外科杂志, 2018, 56(7): 495-498.
[10]
Aguilar-García J, Villafuerte-Fernandez R, Ntezes-Hidalgo PI, et al. Postoperative inguinal pain and disability after Lichtenstein versus ONSTEP hernia repair: analysis of responses to the inguinal pain questionnaire in Spanish[J]. Surg Today, 2021, 51(5): 703-712.
[11]
刘石龙, 杨加磊, 逯景辉. 腹腔镜时代老年腹股沟疝的治疗策略[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2022, 27(3): 206-209.
[12]
杨俊光, 陈明. 老年腹股沟疝的外科治疗进展[J]. 临床医学研究与实践, 2022, 7(13): 194-198.
[13]
李鹏.腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术和平片无张力疝修补术临床对比研究[J].河南外科学杂志, 2023, 29(3): 121-123.
[14]
麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 阿卜杜萨拉木, 李义亮, 等. 腹腔镜下腹股沟无张力疝修补术与Lichtenstein疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的临床研究[J/OL].中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(6): 587-590.
[15]
陈双, 唐健雄, 王小强, 等. Lichtenstein手术规范化操作中国专家共识(2021版)[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2021, 41(7): 747-753.
[16]
任清付, 何雪妮. 局麻下开放腹膜前复发性腹股沟疝修补术的临床疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(6): 447-449.
[17]
Fan Q, Zhang DW, Yang DY, et al. Anterior transversalis fascia approach versus preperitoneal space approach for inguinal hernia repair in residents in northern China: study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial[J]. BMJ Open, 2017, 7(8): 164-168.
[18]
聂鑫, 沙盈盈, 宣谅, 等. 腹腔镜下经腹腹膜前疝修补术与李金斯坦疝无张力修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝患者的疗效对比分析[J].现代生物医学进展, 2022, 22(6): 1069-1073.
[19]
Thölix AM, Kössi J, Harju J. Postoperative pain and pain-related health-care contacts after open inguinal hernia repair with Adhesix™ and Progrip™: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Hernia, 2022, 26(4): 1095-1104.
[20]
吕承刚, 刘良超, 王亚东, 等. 腹腔镜经腹膜前疝修补术与疝环充填式无张力修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的临床预后对比分析[J].中国医药导报, 2021, 18(26): 121-124.
[1] 刘柏隆, 周祥福. 经阴道膀胱膨出前盆补片修补术 + 阴道后壁修补术[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 128-128.
[2] 曹能琦, 张恒, 郑立锋, 陶庆松, 嵇振岭. Ad-Hoc 自裁剪补片用于造口旁疝Sugarbaker 修补术[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 620-623.
[3] 皮尔地瓦斯·麦麦提玉素甫, 李慧灵, 艾克拜尔·艾力, 李赞林, 王志, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 生物补片修补巨大复发性腹壁切口疝临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 624-628.
[4] 马东扬, 李斌, 陆安清, 王光华, 雷文章, 宋应寒. Gilbert 与单层补片腹膜前疝修补术疗效的随机对照研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 629-633.
[5] 王浩源, 汪海洋, 孙建明, 陈以宽, 祁小桐, 唐博. 腹腔镜与开放修补对肝硬化腹外疝患者肝功能及凝血的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 654-659.
[6] 周正阳, 陈凯, 仇多良, 邵乐宁, 吴浩荣, 钟丰云. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后出血原因分析及处理[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 660-664.
[7] 顾熙, 徐子宇, 周澍, 张吴楼, 张业鹏, 林昊, 刘宗航, 嵇振岭, 郑立锋. 腹股沟疝腹膜前间隙无张力修补术后补片感染10 例报道[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 665-669.
[8] 宋俊锋, 张珍珍. 单侧初发性腹股沟斜疝老年患者经腹腹膜前疝修补术中残余疝囊腹直肌下缘固定效果评估[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 670-674.
[9] 高娟, 徐建庆, 闫芳, 丁盛华, 刘霞. Rutkow、TAPP、TEP 手术治疗单侧腹股沟疝患者的临床疗效及对血清炎症因子水平的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 675-680.
[10] 于新峰, 曾琦, 后强, 徐浩, 操谢芳. 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对成人腹股沟疝治疗效果及预后分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 681-686.
[11] 臧宇, 姚胜, 朱新勇, 戎世捧, 田智超. 低温等离子射频消融治疗腹壁疝术后补片感染的临床效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 687-692.
[12] 方辉强, 黄杰, 随冰琰. 腰方肌阻滞与腹横肌平面阻滞对腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术患者术后镇痛效果的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 697-702.
[13] 朱佳琳, 方向, 贵诗雨, 黄丹, 周小雨, 郭文恺. 大鼠切口疝腹膜前间隙补片修补术后血清中VEGF 和Ang-1 的表达情况[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 703-707.
[14] 张晋伟, 董永红, 王家璇. 基于GBD2021 数据库对中国与全球老年人疝疾病负担和健康不平等的分析比较[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 708-716.
[15] 杨媛媛, 林贤超, 林荣贵, 陆逢春, 黄鹤光. 肌后/腹膜前补片修补巨大切口疝术后并发症防治[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 645-648.
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?