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) ›› 2025, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (01) : 51 -55. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2025.01.010

论著

全腹腔镜Sublay 手术与腹腔镜IPOM手术治疗脐疝的回顾性分析
赵学飞1, 靳翠红1, 申英末1,()   
  1. 1.100020 首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院疝和腹壁外科
  • 收稿日期:2024-12-18 出版日期:2025-02-18
  • 通信作者: 申英末

A retrospective analysis of totally endoscopic Sublay surgery versus laparoscopic IPOM surgery for the treatment of umbilical hernia

Xuefei Zhao1, Cuihong Jin1, Yingmo Shen1,()   

  1. 1.Department of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100020, China
  • Received:2024-12-18 Published:2025-02-18
  • Corresponding author: Yingmo Shen
引用本文:

赵学飞, 靳翠红, 申英末. 全腹腔镜Sublay 手术与腹腔镜IPOM手术治疗脐疝的回顾性分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 51-55.

Xuefei Zhao, Cuihong Jin, Yingmo Shen. A retrospective analysis of totally endoscopic Sublay surgery versus laparoscopic IPOM surgery for the treatment of umbilical hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(01): 51-55.

目的

探讨全腹腔镜Sublay 手术(TES)与腹腔镜腹腔内补片修补术(IPOM)治疗脐疝的效果及对患者术后短期生活质量的影响。

方法

回顾性分析2023 年6 月至2024 年2 月在首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院行手术治疗的48 例脐疝患者的临床资料,依据手术方式分为TES 组11 例,IPOM 组37 例。对比2 组患者的手术资料、住院时间、住院费用及围手术期并发症等数据,评价手术效果,重点比较疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)和健康调查量表36(SF-36)评分结果,评价2组患者的术后短期生活质量。

结果

2 组患者的年龄、性别、体重指数、病程、合并症、抗凝及抗血小板药物的应用比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2 组患者的手术时间、出血量、住院时间、并发症及复发率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),TES 组住院费用(19 133.36±4277.28)元,明显低于 IPOM 组(38 596.68±16 764.63)元,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。术后疼痛方面,出院时IPOM 组VAS 评分≥3 分的患者30 例(81.1%),TES 组2 例(18.2%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。术后SF-36 评分结果显示,2 组患者的生活质量均有显著改善,但组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

TES 与IPOM 手术对脐疝均有良好治疗效果,并可改善患者术后短期生活质量。TES 在术后疼痛方面更具优势,住院费用更低。

Objective

To evaluate the therapeutic effects of totally endoscopic sublay repair(TES) compared to laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) in treating umbilical hernias and their influence on patients' short-term postoperative quality of life.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 48 patients with umbilical hernias who underwent surgical treatment in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, between June 2023 and February 2024.Patients were categorized into two groups based on the surgical method: the TES group (11 cases)and the IPOM group (37 cases).Surgical data, length of hospital stay, hospitalization costs, and perioperative complications were compared between the two groups to evaluate surgical outcomes, with a focus on visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) scores to assess the short-term postoperative quality of life.

Results

No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of age, sex, body mass index, disease duration, comorbidities, or the use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications (P>0.05).No significant differences were found in surgical time, blood loss, hospital stay length, complications, or recurrence rates between the two groups(P>0.05).The hospitalization cost for the TES group was (19 133.36±4277.28) yuan, significantly lower than that of the IPOM group (38 596.68±16 764.63 yuan), with a statistically significant difference(P<0.001).Regarding postoperative pain, 30 (81.1%) patients in the IPOM group had a VAS score ≥3 at discharge, compared to 2 (18.2%) patients in the TES group, with a statistically significant difference(P<0.001).Postoperative SF-36 scores indicated significant quality-of-life improvements in both groups,but with no statistically significant difference between groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Both TES and IPOM surgeries exhibit good effect for umbilical hernias and enhance the short-term postoperative quality of life in patients.TES offers benefits in reducing postoperative pain and lowering hospitalization costs.

表1 2 组腹腔镜脐疝修补术患者的一般资料比较
表2 2 组腹腔镜脐疝修补术患者的手术及术后相关资料比较
表3 2 组腹腔镜脐疝修补术患者中不同时间疼痛视觉模拟评分≥3 分的患者比例比较[例(%)]
表4 2 组腹腔镜脐疝修补术患者术前、术后3 个月SF-36 各项评分组内及组间比较(± s
[1]
Arunagiri V, Padmanabhan R, Mayandi P.A short term analysis of surgical management of umbilical and paraumbilical hernia[J].Turk J Surg, 2018, 34(1): 21-23.
[2]
Korukonda S, Amaranathan A, Ramakrishnaiah VPN.Laparoscopic versus Open Repair of Para-Umbilical Hernia- A Prospective Comparative Study of Short Term Outcomes[J].J Clin Diagn Res,2017, 11(8): PC22-PC24.
[3]
Elhage SA, Pflederer CT, Ayuso SA, et al.Multicenter analysis of laparoscopic versus open umbilical hernia repair with mesh:outcomes and quality of life(QoL)[J].Surg Endosc, 2022, 36(9):6822-6831.
[4]
Malibary N, Shurrab M, Albariqi MO, et al.Quality of Life After Umbilical Hernia Repair[J].Cureus, 2021, 13(10): e19016.
[5]
Pawlak M, Tulloh B, de Beaux A.Current trends in hernia surgery in NHS England[J].Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 2020, 102(1): 25-27.
[6]
Schjoth-Iversen L, Sahakyan MA, Lai X, et al.Laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study[J].Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2023, 408(1): 300.
[7]
李健文, 乐飞, 薛佩.从原发性腹壁疝的含义和特点谈微创术式进展[J].中国普通外科杂志, 2023, 32(10): 1460-1468.
[8]
张磊, 伊晓宇, 王东, 等.腹腔镜完全腹膜外Sublay 修补术治疗脐疝的回顾性临床研究[J].腹腔镜外科杂志, 2022, 27(9): 645-648+ 671.
[9]
朱江, 梅虎, 庄云峰, 等.腹腔镜完全腹膜外补片修补术治疗脐疝、脐旁疝的疗效分析[J].腹腔镜外科杂志, 2021, 26(5): 363-366.
[10]
罗宏宇, 刘小飞, 李国权, 等.增强视野完全腹膜外疝修补术在中线腹壁疝的应用[J/OL].中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021,15(4): 357-360.
[11]
Kumar N, Jaiswal P, Sinha N, et al.Novel Technique of Laparoscopic e-TEP(Extended View Totally Extraperitoneal Repair) for Umbilical Hernia at a Tertiary Care Centre of Eastern India: a Case Series[J].Maedica(Bucur), 2022, 17(2): 329-335.
[12]
Wang T, Tang R, Meng X, et al.Comparative review of outcomes:single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay(SIL-TES)mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh(IPOM)repair for ventral hernia[J].Updates Surg, 2022, 74(3): 1117-1127.
[13]
傅锦波, 洪晓泉, 旷鹏昊, 等.侧方入路腹腔镜下完全腹膜外成人脐疝修补术5 例经验[J].中国普通外科杂志, 2021, 30(4): 406-411.
[14]
Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, et al.Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias(International Endohernia Society(IEHS)-part 1[J].Surg Endosc, 2014, 28(1): 2-29.
[15]
Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, et al.Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias(International Endohernia Society[IEHS])-Part 2[J].Surg Endosc, 2014, 28(2): 353-379.
[16]
Patel PP, Love MW, Ewing JA, et al.Risks of subsequent abdominal operations after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair[J].Surg Endosc,2017, 31(2): 823-828.
[17]
Li B, Qin C, Bittner R.Totally endoscopic sublay(TES) repair for midline ventral hernia: surgical technique and preliminary results[J].Surg Endosc, 2020, 34(4): 1543-1550.
[18]
Li J, Wang Y, Wu L.The Comparison of eTEP and IPOM in Ventral and Incisional Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis[J].Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2022, 32(2): 252-258.
[19]
Shenoy G, Shamburao RB, Thomas M.Enhanced view totally extraperitoneal approach to irreducible inguinoscrotal and giant inguinal hernias: Technical remarks and 5-year experience[J].Int J Abdom Wall Hernia Surg, 2023, 6(4): 242-250.
[1] 陈翠萍, 李佩君, 杜景榕, 谢青梅, 许一宁, 卓姝妤, 李晓芳. 互联网联合上门护理在老年全髋关节置换术后的应用效果[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 676-681.
[2] 付莉莉, 陈红梅. 严重烧伤患者家属疾病不确定感与照顾负担及生活质量相关性分析[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2025, 20(01): 36-41.
[3] 李萍, 陈慧, 庄君龙. 快速康复外科在机器人辅助腹腔镜膀胱切除回肠造口术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 249-253.
[4] 刘付恒, 曾兵, 陈双, 甘文昌, 元志龙, 周太成, 李英儒. 疝穿戴装置在腹腔镜腹股沟疝日间手术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 40-45.
[5] 刘欣茹, 杜鹃, 代健健, 辛秀娟, 高梨梨. SBAR沟通模式在急诊腹股沟疝手术患者中的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 451-455.
[6] 孙红燕, 李娟. 造口旁疝患者生活质量的影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 273-276.
[7] 沈柳柳, 周不畏, 王敏, 卢春霞, 邢燕飞. 个体化肺康复及情绪调节对AECOPD并VTE 高危患者生活质量和预后影响分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(06): 971-974.
[8] 张璇, 高杨, 房雅君, 姚艳玲. 保护性机械通气在肺癌胸腔镜肺段切除术中的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 563-567.
[9] 马锦芳, 何正光, 郑劲平. 盐酸氨溴索雾化吸入治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病黏痰症患者的疗效和安全性分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 568-574.
[10] 陶银花, 张红杰, 王亚岚, 陈莲, 张珺. 间歇式气压治疗预防肺癌化疗下肢深静脉血栓的临床分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 605-608.
[11] 林建琴, 孔令敏, 陆银凤, 陈勇, 金凤, 叶磊, 陈方梅. PERMA模式对肺癌患者治疗获益感及生活质量的影响分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 634-638.
[12] 罗孝平, 封敏, 黄川, 唐茜, 蒋艳, 胡莉丽. 渐进式抗阻训练干预在非小细胞肺癌中的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(03): 472-474.
[13] 李临川, 李戊阳, 程玉刚, 朱健康, 张光永. 近端胃切除术后消化道重建方式的现状与展望[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(03): 135-140.
[14] 赵磊, 刘文志, 林峰, 于剑, 孙铭骏, 崔佑刚, 张旭, 衣宇鹏, 于宝胜, 冯宁. 深部热疗在改善结直肠癌术后辅助化疗副反应及生活质量中的作用研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 488-493.
[15] 高建平, 王辉, 王淑萍. 定期家庭随访对胸腔镜食管癌术后饮食恢复功能的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(02): 188-192.
阅读次数
全文


摘要