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 (04) : 427 -433. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2025.04.012

所属专题: 文献

论著

基于倾向评分匹配评价70岁及以上患者在日间手术模式下行腹股沟疝修补术的安全性及可行性分析
罗彬予1,2, 柏丹1, 滕庆1, 郭炜1, 黄斌1, 田云鸿1,2,()   
  1. 1637000 四川南充,首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院南充医院 南充市中心医院胃肠疝外科
    2637000 四川南充,川北医学院第二临床医学院胃肠疝外科
  • 收稿日期:2024-09-13 出版日期:2025-08-18
  • 通信作者: 田云鸿
  • 基金资助:
    四川省医学会科研课题(S23085); 四川省科技厅四川省自然科学基金(2023NSFSC1619)

Evaluation of the safety and feasibility of inguinal hernia repair surgery in more than 70 years old patients undergoing day surgery mode based on propensity score matching

Binyu Luo1,2, Dan Bai1, Qing Teng1, Wei Guo1, Bin Huang1, Yunhong Tian1,2,()   

  1. 1Gastrointestinal Hernia Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Nanchong Hospital, Capital Medical University, Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong 637000, Sichuan Province, China
    2Gastrointestinal Hernia Surgery, The Second Clinical Medical College of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong 637000, Sichuan Province, China
  • Received:2024-09-13 Published:2025-08-18
  • Corresponding author: Yunhong Tian
引用本文:

罗彬予, 柏丹, 滕庆, 郭炜, 黄斌, 田云鸿. 基于倾向评分匹配评价70岁及以上患者在日间手术模式下行腹股沟疝修补术的安全性及可行性分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 427-433.

Binyu Luo, Dan Bai, Qing Teng, Wei Guo, Bin Huang, Yunhong Tian. Evaluation of the safety and feasibility of inguinal hernia repair surgery in more than 70 years old patients undergoing day surgery mode based on propensity score matching[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(04): 427-433.

目的

评价70岁及以上老年患者在日间手术模式下行腹股沟疝修补术的安全性及可行性。

方法

回顾性收集2021年1月至2023年12月于南充市中心医院胃肠疝外科行腹股沟疝修补术患者的临床资料。根据患者入院方式及年龄不同分为≥70岁日间组、≥70岁住院组和<70岁日间组3组,分别采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)方法将≥70岁日间组与≥70岁住院组、≥70岁日间组与<70岁日间组两两匹配研究。分别比较匹配后2组患者间术后恢复期的临床指标。

结果

本研究纳入≥70岁行日间手术患者219例、≥70岁普通住院手术患者612例、<70岁行日间手术患者531例。经1∶1 PSM,≥70岁日间组与≥70岁住院组分别纳入208例患者进行对照研究,2组患者的出血、手术时间、术后发热、恶心、呕吐、尿潴留、静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)、血清肿、切口愈合情况、出院疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、复发情况比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);≥70岁住院组住院费用(15 070.09±3090.63)元高于≥70岁日间组(12 949.88±3439.28)元,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。经1∶1 PSM,≥70岁日间组与<70岁日间组分别纳入152例患者进行对比研究,2组患者的出血、手术时间、住院费用、术后发热、恶心、呕吐、尿潴留、VTE、血清肿、切口愈合情况、出院VAS评分、复发情况对比,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

基于PSM的回顾性研究显示,70岁及以上老年患者经麻醉风险评估(腹股沟疝日间手术指南要求)良好,虽有基础疾病,但并不需要复杂多学科合作诊疗者,开展日间疝手术是安全可行的。

Objective

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of inguinal hernia repair surgery in patients over 70 years old under day surgery mode.

Methods

Clinical data of patients who underwent inguinal hernia repair surgery in the Department of Gastrointestinal Hernia Surgery of Nanchong Central Hospital from January 2021 to December 2023 was retrospectively collected. According to the different admission methods and ages of patients, they were divided into three groups: ≥70 years old day surgery group, ≥70 years old hospitalization surgery group, and <70 years old day surgery group. Propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to match the ≥70 years old day surgery group with the ≥70 years old hospitalization surgery group, and the ≥70 years old day surgery group with the <70 year old day surgery group pairwise. The clinical indicators of postoperative recovery period between the two groups of patients after matching were compared respectively.

Results

In this study, 219 patients ≥70 years old who underwent day surgery, 612 patients ≥70 years old who underwent ordinary in-patient surgery, and 531 patients <70 years old who underwent day surgery were included. Through a 1:1 PSM, 208 patients were included in the ≥70 years old day surgery group and the ≥70 years old hospitalization surgery group as a comparative study. There was no significant difference between the two groups in bleeding, operation time, postoperative fever, nausea, vomiting, urinary retention, venous thromboembolism (VTE), seroma, wound healing, discharge visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, and recurrence (P>0.05). However, in the comparison of hospitalization costs between the two groups of patients[≥70 years old day surgery group (12 949.88±3439.28) yuan, ≥70 years old hospitalization surgery group (15 070.09±3090.63) yuan, P<0.001], the hospitalization surgery group had higher costs than the day surgery group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Similarly, after a 1:1 PSM, 152 patients were included in the day surgery group ≥70 years old and the day surgery group <70 years old as a comparative study. There was no significant difference between the two groups in bleeding, operation time, hospital costs, postoperative fever, nausea, vomiting, urinary retention, VTE, seroma, incision healing, discharge VAS pain, and recurrence (P>0.05).

Conclusion

This retrospective study based on PSM showed that elderly patients over 70 years old who have good anesthesia risk assessment (as required by the guidelines for inguinal hernia day surgery), have underlying diseases, and do not require complex multidisciplinary cooperation for diagnosis and treatment, are safe and feasible to undergo hernia day surgery.

表1 2组腹股沟疝患者倾向评分匹配前后基线数据比较
项目 匹配前 匹配后
≥70岁日间组(219例) ≥70岁住院组(612例) χ2/t/Z P ≥70岁日间组(208例) ≥70岁住院组(208例) χ2/t/Z P
住院时间(d,±s) 1.00±0.00 7.14±5.27 28.831 <0.001 1.00±0.00 6.39±4.20 18.543 <0.001
年龄(岁,±s) 75.61±4.29 77.14±4.98 4.042 <0.001 75.62±4.31 76.27±5.13 1.397 0.163
性别[例(%)]   0.269 0.604     0.542 0.462
男性 199(90.9) 563(92.0)     190(91.3) 194(93.3)    
女性 20(9.1) 49(8.0) 18(8.7) 14(6.7)
体重指数(kg/m2,±s) 22.90±3.00 22.80±2.77 0.437 0.662 22.92±2. 0 22.92±2.89 0.008 0.994
病程天数[d,M(Q1,Q3)] 175.0(30.0,730.0) 180.0(30.0,730.0) 0.5530.432 0.5810.666 180.0(30.0,730.0) 180.0(30.0,730.0) 1.2700.146 0.884
合并症[例(%)]              
高血压 76(34.7) 256(41.8) 3.415 0.065 71(34.1) 81(38.9) 1.037 0.309
糖尿病 29(13.2) 171(27.9) 19.069 <0.001 29(13.9) 31(14.9) 0.078 0.780
COPD 63(28.8) 258(42.2) 12.197 <0.001 63(30.3) 66(31.7) 0.101 0.750
心血管疾病 56(25.6) 163(26.6) 0.094 0.759 50(24.0) 48(23.1) 0.053 0.817
前列腺增生症 41(18.7) 110(18.0) 0.061 0.806 38(18.3) 45(21.6) 0.738 0.390
肾功能不全 4(1.8) 5(0.8) - 0.254 4(1.9) 2(1.0) 0.676 0.685
肝功能疾病 1(0.5) 8(1.3) - 0.458 1(0.5) 1(0.5) 0.000 1.000
脑卒中病史 5(2.3) 37(6.0) 4.758 0.029 5(2.4) 10(4.8) 1.729 0.189
腹部手术病史 10(4.6) 20(3.3) 0.781 0.377 10(4.8) 10(4.8) 0.000 1.000
恶性肿瘤病史 7(3.2) 58(9.5) 8.824 0.003 7(3.4) 5(2.4) 0.343 0.558
吸烟史 61(27.9) 186(30.4) 0.497 0.481 61(29.3) 54(26.0) 0.589 0.443
饮酒史 62(28.3) 143(23.4) 2.122 0.145 54(26.0) 55(26.4) 0.012 0.911
ASA评分[例(%)]   15.148 0.001     0.326 0.878
146(66.7) 327(53.4)     135(64.9) 133(63.9)    
59(26.9) 195(31.9) 59(28.4) 58(27.9)
14(6.4) 90(14.7) 14(6.7) 17(8.2)
中华疝分型[例(%)]   4.383 0.223     4.103 0.251
50(22.8) 173(28.3)     46(22.1) 36(17.3)    
86(39.3) 249(40.7) 80(38.5) 72(34.6)
69(31.5) 162(26.5) 68(32.7) 78(37.5)
14(6.4) 28(4.6) 14(6.7) 22(10.6)
侧数[例(%)]   0.005 0.945     2.928 0.087
单侧 144(65.8) 404(66.0)     136(65.4) 119(57.2)    
双侧 75(34.2) 208(34.0) 72(34.6) 89(42.8)
麻醉方式[例(%)]   50.177 <0.001     2.249 0.762
全身麻醉 211(96.3) 469(76.8)     200(96.2) 195(93.8)    
椎管内麻醉 1(0.5) 37(5.8) 1(0.5) 2(1.0)
硬膜外麻醉 1(0.5) 12(2.0) 1(0.5) 2(1.0)
局部麻醉 6(2.7) 94(15.4) 6(2.9) 9(4.3)
手术方式[例(%)]   66.565 <0.001     0.531 0.944
TEP 129(58.9) 241(39.4)     120(57.7) 118(56.7)    
TAPP 79(36.1) 171(27.9) 77(37.0) 78(37.5)
Lichenstein 8(3.7) 97(15.8) 8(3.8) 10(4.8)
腹膜前Kugel 3(1.4) 103(16.8) 3(1.4) 2(1.0)
表2 PSM后2组患者腹股沟疝术后临床指标比较
表3 2组腹股沟疝患者倾向评分匹配前后基线数据比较
临床资料 匹配前 匹配后
≥70岁日间组(219例) <70岁日间组(531例) χ2/t/z P ≥70岁日间组(152例) <70岁日间组(152例) χ2/t/z P
年龄(岁, ±s) 75.61±4.29 55.78±11.90 24.038 <0.001 75.41±4.180 59.28±9.520 19.135 <0.001
性别[例(%)]     0.127 0.721     1.927 0.165
男性 199(90.9) 478(90.0)     139(91.4) 145(95.4)    
女性 20(9.1) 53(10.0) 13(8.6) 7(4.6)
体重指数(kg/m2,±s) 22.90±3.00 23.07±2.74 0.754 0.451 22.85±3.070 22.91±2.597 0.192 0.848
病程天数[d,M(Q1,Q3)] 175.0(30.0,730.0) 180.0(30.0,725.0) 0.305 0.760 162.0(30.0,720.0) 365.0(30.0,1095.0) 1.893 0.058
合并症[例(%)]                
高血压 76(34.7) 47(8.9) 75.581 <0.001 38(25.0) 41(27.0) 0.154 0.695
糖尿病 29(13.2) 18(3.4) 25.622 <0.001 10(6.6) 15(9.9) 1.090 0.297
COPD 63(28.8) 57(10.7) 37.514 <0.001 37(24.3) 37(24.3) 0.000 1.000
心血管疾病 56(25.6) 78(14.7) 12.511 <0.001 38(25.0) 47(30.9) 1.323 0.250
前列腺增生症 41(18.7) 52(9.8) 11.379 0.001 28(18.4) 24(15.8) 0.371 0.542
肾功能不全 4(1.8) 1(0.2) - 0.027 3(2.0) 1(0.7) - 0.623
肝功能疾病 1(0.5) 2(0.4) - 1.000 0(0.0) 2(1.3) - 0.498
脑卒中病史 5(2.3) 6(1.1) 0.740 0.390 3(2.0) 4(2.6) - 1.000
腹部手术病史 10(4.6) 11(2.1) 3.545 0.060 5(3.3) 6(3.9) 0.094 0.759
恶性肿瘤病史 7(3.2) 3(0.6) 6.283 0.012 5(3.3) 1(0.7)   0.214
吸烟史 61(27.9) 56(10.5) 35.277 <0.001 33(21.7) 37(24.3) 0.297 0.586
饮酒史 62(28.3) 41(7.7) 55.480 <0.001 37(24.3) 33(21.7) 0.297 0.586
ASA评分[例(%)]     89.234 <0.001     0.246 0.890
146(66.7) 495(93.2)     114(75.0) 117(77.0)    
59(26.9) 32(6.0)   33(21.7) 31(20.4)
14(6.4) 4(0.8)   5(3.3) 4(2.6)
中华疝分型[例(%)]     10.790 0.013     3.601 0.308
50(22.8) 159(29.9)     33(21.7) 36(23.7)    
86(39.3) 206(38.8) 59(38.8) 44(28.9)
69(31.5) 154(29.0) 50(32.9) 62(40.8)
14(6.4) 12(2.3) 10(6.6) 10(6.6)
侧数[例(%)]     3.016 0.082     0.128 0.721
单侧 144(65.8) 383(72.1)     98(64.5) 95(62.5)    
双侧 75(34.2) 148(27.9) 54(35.5) 57(37.5)
麻醉方式[例(%)]     8.302 0.020     2.882 0.369
全身麻醉 211(96.3) 523(98.5)     146(96.1) 150(98.7)    
椎管内麻醉 1(0.5) 5(0.9) 1(0.7) 1(0.7)
硬膜外麻醉 1(0.5) 1(0.2) 1(0.7) 0(0.0)
局部麻醉 6(2.7) 2(0.4) 4(2.6) 1(0.7)
手术方式[例(%)]     7.695 0.077     1.546 0.748
TEP 129(58.9) 332(62.5)     90(59.2) 93(61.2)    
TAPP 79(36.1) 187(35.2) 54(35.5) 55(36.2)
Lichenstein 8(3.7) 4(0.8) 5(3.3) 2(1.3)
腹膜前Kugel 3(1.4) 8(1.5) 3(2.0) 2(1.3)
表4 PSM后2组患者腹股沟疝术后临床指标比较
[1]
van Veenendaal N, Simons M, Hope W, et al. Correction to: consensus on international guidelines for management of groin hernias[J]. Surg Endosc, 2020, 34(6): 2378.
[2]
中国医师协会外科医师分会疝和腹壁外科学组,中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组,全国卫生产业企业管理协会疝和腹壁外科产业及临床研究分会, 等. 腹股沟疝日间手术规范化流程专家共识(2020版)[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2020, 19(7): 714-719.
[3]
唐健雄,李航宇. 老年腹股沟疝诊断和治疗中国专家共识(2019版)解读[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(1): 12-15.
[4]
Liu J, Zhang H, Qiao X, et al. The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair as a 24-h day surgery for patients aged 80 years and older: a retrospective cohort study[J]. Hernia, 2023, 27(6): 1533-1541.
[5]
Dietz UA. Day surgery for inguinal hernia[J]. Therapeutische Umschau, 2019, 76(10): 555.
[6]
Joyner J, Ayyaz FM, Cheetham M, et al. Day-case and in-patient elective inguinal hernia repair surgery across England: an observational study of variation and outcomes[J]. Hernia, 2023, 27(6): 1439-1449.
[7]
邓先锐,郑磊,徐通海, 等. 日间手术模式在腹股沟疝修补术中的应用价值[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2023, 22(9): 1075-1079.
[8]
Zhong Y, He M, Liu Z, et al. Efficacy of laparoscopic inguinal hernia in day surgery mode and inpatient surgery mode in China: a meta-analysis[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2023, 102(8): e32998.
[9]
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.
[10]
Austin PC, Schuster T. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating absolute effects of treatments on survival outcomes: A simulation study[J]. Stat Methods Med Res, 2016, 25(5): 2214-2237.
[11]
Miura Y, Nishio K, Kitamura Y, et al. Surgical risk assessment for super-elderly patients[J]. Geriatr Gerontol Int, 2022, 22(4): 271-277.
[12]
Xu Z, Zhao Y, Fu X, et al. Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair in aging patients: a propensity score matching-based retrospective study[J]. Ther Clin Risk Manag, 2023, 19: 657-666.
[13]
Perez A J, Campbell S. Inguinal hernia repair in older persons[J]. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2022, 23(4): 563-567.
[14]
中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组. 老年腹股沟疝诊断和治疗中国专家共识(2019版)[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2019, 39(8): 782-787.
[15]
Perez A J, Campbell S. Inguinal hernia repair in older persons[J]. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2022, 23(4): 563-567.
[16]
Lu Y, Liu S, Jing S, et al. Safety and feasibility of early drinking water after general anesthesia recovery in patients undergoing daytime surgery[J]. BMC Anesthesiol, 2024, 24(1): 231.
[17]
王哲,狄茂军,李晓波, 等. ERAS在日间腹腔镜疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝中的应用[J]. 中国实用乡村医生杂志, 2022, 29(11): 41-45.
[18]
中华医学会麻醉学分会. 日间手术麻醉指南[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2023, 103(43): 3462-3471.
[19]
Fan P, Liao M, Xiao L, et al. The efficiency of quick response code versus telephone contact for post-discharge follow-up after ophthalmic day surgery: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Int Ophthalmol, 2023, 43(8): 2669-2677.
[1] 许桂祥, 彭新刚. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术经验总结及对术后血清肿的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 438-441.
[2] 丁文博, 陈颖, 李红, 施海华. 多排螺旋CT多平面重建技术在腹股沟疝鉴别及嵌顿疝预测中的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 450-457.
[3] 宋勤勤, 黄敏. 整体护理干预对老年腹股沟疝术后恢复情况的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 463-465.
[4] 李亮, 谢肖俊, 隋梁. 腹外疝的关键病理生理:肌肉减少症[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 475-477.
[5] 张嘉炜, 吴宇光, 余维东, 陈江明, 杨诚, 熊茂明. 前列腺MRI参数及临床因素与机器人前列腺癌根治术后腹股沟疝发生的相关性研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 258-264.
[6] 杨洋, 张晓贝, 曹栋, 张建岭, 俞永江. 接受抗血栓治疗老年患者行腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术安全性评价[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 269-275.
[7] 高金伟, 张琪, 王泽升, 成晓舟, 张宇鹏, 王小虎, 曹维嘉, 屈坤鹏. 单孔腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术中应用不同材质补片的疗效对比[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 281-285.
[8] 游志恒, 席红卫, 石正峰. 腹股沟疝女性患儿腹腔镜手术中筛查完全性雄激素不敏感综合征的应用分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 292-295.
[9] 卢飞飞, 王隽, 江志伟, 冯秀梅, 权红光, 刘静. 纳布啡联合罗哌卡因超声引导髂腹下/髂腹股沟神经阻滞对腹股沟疝术后疼痛及早期恢复的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 296-300.
[10] 彭泉, 陈亮, 郑玉, 于华杰, 陈旭, 王刚, 张明金. 超声引导下双平面阻滞和局部浸润麻醉在老年腹股沟疝患者手术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 301-305.
[11] 崔洁, 刘雨辰, 王明刚. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术研究进展[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 325-330.
[12] 王可依, 吴冲, 刘寒松, 高磊. 腹股沟疝术后补片感染的诊疗进展[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 331-334.
[13] 中国老年保健协会肝胆胰外科专业委员会, 北京医院, 国家老年医学中心, 中国医学科学院老年医学研究院. 老年急性胆道感染诊治专家共识(2025版)[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(04): 491-507.
[14] 张俊山, 杜晓健, 刘小刚, 王良, 张磊, 闫荣亮, 曹立海, 张玲. 改良踝关节前外侧入路与前侧入路全踝关节置换术治疗老年踝关节骨性关节炎的对比研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2025, 11(04): 207-213.
[15] 孟凡涛, 刘慧林, 杨爽. 老年结直肠癌组织RAB7A 表达与其临床病理特征及肝转移的关系[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(03): 205-209.
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?