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) ›› 2024, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (01) : 65 -69. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2024.01.013

疝外科日间手术专栏

日间疝修补术后不同加压方式对血清肿预防的差异研究
张翔1, 林凯1, 潘勇1, 杨春1,()   
  1. 1. 610072 成都,四川省医学科学院·四川省人民医院(电子科技大学附属医院)胃肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2023-12-11 出版日期:2024-02-18
  • 通信作者: 杨春
  • 基金资助:
    四川省科技计划项目重点研发项目(2022YFS0166)

Differences in prevention of seroma after daytime hernia repair by different compression methods

Xiang Zhang1, Kai Lin1, Yong Pan1, Chun Yang1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan People's Hospital, Chengdu 610072, China
  • Received:2023-12-11 Published:2024-02-18
  • Corresponding author: Chun Yang
引用本文:

张翔, 林凯, 潘勇, 杨春. 日间疝修补术后不同加压方式对血清肿预防的差异研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 65-69.

Xiang Zhang, Kai Lin, Yong Pan, Chun Yang. Differences in prevention of seroma after daytime hernia repair by different compression methods[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(01): 65-69.

目的

探究日间腹股沟疝无张力修补术后使用新型疝穿戴装置(HWD)和传统压迫方法对术后血清肿预防效果及生活质量影响的差异,以期发现可有效降低术后血清肿发生率及提高患者生活质量的临床途径。

方法

选取四川省人民医院日间手术中心2022年12月至2023年8月收治的125例腹股沟疝患者,均行腹腔镜下腹股沟疝无张力修补术,采用随机数字表法将纳入样本的腹股沟疝患者随机分成试验组与对照组。试验组术后穿戴HWD压迫术区体表投影处,对照组术后用盐袋常规压迫。随访并分析2组术后血清肿发生情况、疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分,使用卡罗莱纳舒适量表(CCS)评估生活质量,并调查HWD的使用满意度。

结果

2组患者在年龄、性别、疝类型等一般术前资料方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。共有122例完成术后1周随访,随访率97.6%。其中试验组血清肿发生率为8.3%(5/60),对照组血清肿发生率为21.0%(13/62),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后1、3个月2组血清肿发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随着术后时间延长,2组患者VAS评分均逐渐降低,其中试验组在术后2 h VAS评分低于对照组(P<0.05),术后1周VAS评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1周,2组患者的CCS评分均处于较低水平,且试验组低于对照组(P<0.05)。术后1周评估,HWD应用的总体满意度为91.6%(55/60)。

结论

在日间腹股沟疝无张力修补术后使用HWD较传统盐袋压迫方法,可以更好地降低血清肿发生率,减轻术后疼痛,提高生活质量,患者使用满意度较高。

Objective

To investigate the difference of a novel hernia wearable device (HWD) and traditional compression methods on postoperative seroma prevention and quality of life after inguinal hernia day surgery, and to identify an effective clinical approach for reducing seroma incidence and improve patient quality of life.

Methods

A total of 125 patients with inguinal hernia admitted to the day surgery center of Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital from December 2022 to August 2023 were selected. All patients underwent laparoscopic tension-free repair of inguinal hernia. The patients were randomly divided into experimental group and control group by random number table method. The experimental group utilized HWD for compression at the surgical site postoperatively, while the control group employed conventional salt bags for compression. Both groups were follow up and postoperative seroma incidence, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, evaluation of quality of life using Carolina Comfort Scale (CCS), and satisfaction with HWD usage were analyzed.

Results

There were no significant differences in preoperative demographic data such as age, sex, and type of hernia between the two groups (P>0.05). A total of 122 patients completed one-week follow-up after surgery, with a follow-up rate of 97.6%. The experimental group exhibited an 8.3% (5/60) seroma incidence compared to a 21.0% (13/62) incidence in the control group, with statistical significance. No significant difference was observed in seroma incidence between the two groups at one month and three months postoperatively. As time progressed after surgery, VAS scores gradually decreased in both groups; however, at 2 hours postoperatively, the experimental group had lower VAS scores than those in the control group (P<0.05). No difference was found in VAS scores of the first week after surgery (P>0.05). The CCS scores of all patients were at a low level one week after surgery, and the experimental group was lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). The patient satisfaction using HWD was 91.6% (55/60).

Conclusion

Compared with the traditional salt bag compression method, the use of the new HWD after tension-free inguinal hernia day surgery can better reduce the incidence of seroma, relieve postoperative pain, improve the quality of life, with high patient satisfaction.

图1 新型疝穿戴装置
表1 2组患者临床资料比较
表2 2组患者术后血清肿发生率的比较[例(%)]
表3 2组患者术后疼痛视觉模拟评分比较(±s
[1]
嵇武, 刘亚萍, 戴玮. 我国日间手术开展现状与前景展望[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2020, 40(2): 199-202.
[2]
童贵显, 刘同柱, 谷玮. 我国日间疝修补术的应用现状、效果及管理[J]. 中国临床研究, 2020, 33(9): 1271-1273.
[3]
俞德梁, 宁鹏涛, 王娟, 等. 当前中国日间手术模式下腹股沟疝手术规范探讨[J]. 医学与哲学(B), 2016, 37(3): 74-77.
[4]
Li J, Gong W, Liu Q. Intraoperative adjunctive techniques to reduce seroma formation in laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty: a systematic review[J]. Hernia, 2019, 23(4): 723-731.
[5]
邹振玉, 刘雨辰, 张丁元, 等. 新型疝穿戴装置预防腹股沟疝修补术后早期并发症多中心真实世界研究[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2023, 43(4): 433-436.
[6]
HerniaSurge Group. International guidelines for groin hernia management[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(1): 1-165.
[7]
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.
[8]
胡小忍, 安伟德, 徐雪东, 等. 日间手术模式下合理开展老年腹股沟疝TAPP安全性及可行性分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(4): 403-407.
[9]
Shah MY, Raut P, Wilkinson TRV, et al. Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal(TEP) inguinal hernia repair compared with Lichtenstein tension-free open mesh inguinal hernia repair: A prospective randomized study[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2022, 101(26): e29746.
[10]
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.
[11]
Morales-Conde S. A new classification for seroma after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair[J]. Hernia, 2012, 16(3): 261-267.
[12]
Lo CW, Chen YT, Jaw FS, et al. Predictive factors of post-laparoscopic inguinal hernia acute and chronic pain: prospective follow-up of 807 patients from a single experienced surgeon[J]. Surg Endosc, 2021, 35(1): 148-158.
[13]
Parseliunas A, Paskauskas S, Simatoniene V, et al. Adaptation and validation of the Carolinas Comfort Scale: a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study[J]. Hernia, 2022, 26(3): 735-744.
[14]
Forester B, Attaar M, Chirayil S, et al. Predictors of chronic pain after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair[J]. Surgery, 2021, 169(3): 586-594.
[15]
Olmi S, Scaini A, Cesana GC, et al. Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair: an open randomized controlled study[J]. Surg Endosc, 2007, 21(4): 555-559.
[16]
Petersen M, Friis-Andersen H, Zinther N. Does closure of the direct hernia defect in laparoscopic inguinal herniotomy reduce the risk of recurrence and seroma formation?: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Hernia, 2023, 27(2): 259-264.
[17]
Pan C, Xu X, Si X, et al. Effect of complete reduction of hernia sac and transection of hernia sac during laparoscopic indirect inguinal hernia repair on seroma[J]. BMC Surg, 2022, 22(1): 149.
[18]
Zou Z, Zhang D, Liu Y, et al. Postoperative compression in preventing early complications after groin hernia repair[J]. Hernia, 2023, 27(4): 969-977.
[19]
郭晓, 王辰, 崔逸峰, 等. 腹股沟疝修补术后放置引流与否对血清肿形成的影响的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(2): 169-173.
[20]
姚瑶, 廖理芳. 芒硝袋外用预防腹股沟疝术后阴囊血清肿的效果观察[J]. 循证护理, 2023, 9(14): 2659-2660.
[21]
柳博文, 罗智文, 孙世波, 等. 不同压迫方式对腹腔镜腹股沟疝术后并发症的影响:基于倾向性评分匹配法[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2023, 28(9): 690-694, 700.
[22]
Heniford BT, Lincourt AE, Walters AL, et al. Carolinas Comfort Scale as a Measure of Hernia Repair Quality of Life: A Reappraisal Utilizing 3788 International Patients[J]. Ann Surg, 2018, 267(1): 171-176.
[1] 宋玟焱, 杜美君, 陈佳丽, 石冰, 黄汉尧. 唇腭裂手术围手术期疼痛管理的研究进展及基于生物材料治疗新方法的展望[J/OL]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 397-405.
[2] 易颖煜, 朱亚琴. 口颌面疼痛的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 300-306.
[3] 杜伟, 廖土明, 李雄才, 关刚强, 何燊, 吴佳桥, 朱和荣. 2%利多卡因凝胶和润滑剂凝胶在女性尿流动力学检查中应用的随机对照研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 613-617.
[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] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 闫亚飞, 范学圣, 张舰, 吴勇. 经腹腹膜前疝修补术治疗复发腹股沟疝的临床效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 552-556.
[13] 潘立超, 王兆海, 刘荣. 日间肝切除术2例报道[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 253-256.
[14] 韦巧玲, 黄妍, 赵昌, 宋庆峰, 陈祖毅, 黄莹, 蒙嫦, 黄靖. 肝癌微波消融术后中重度疼痛风险预测列线图模型构建及验证[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 715-721.
[15] 蔡晓雯, 李慧景, 丘婕, 杨翼帆, 吴素贤, 林玉彤, 何秋娜. 肝癌患者肝动脉化疗栓塞术后疼痛风险预测模型的构建及验证[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 722-728.
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?