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) ›› 2026, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (02) : 201 -205. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2026.02.014

论著

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术和平片式无张力疝修补术对腹股沟疝的疗效对比
高木超(), 牛峻坚, 崔海龙, 盛国涛   
  1. 233000 安徽,蚌埠市第二人民医院普外科
  • 收稿日期:2024-08-18 出版日期:2026-04-18
  • 通信作者: 高木超

Comparison of effects between laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal repair and traditional tension-free repair in treating inguinal hernia

Muchao Gao(), Junjian Niu, Hailong Cui, Guotao Sheng   

  1. General Surgery Department of Bengbu Second People's Hospital, Bengbu 233000, Anhui Province, China
  • Received:2024-08-18 Published:2026-04-18
  • Corresponding author: Muchao Gao
引用本文:

高木超, 牛峻坚, 崔海龙, 盛国涛. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术和平片式无张力疝修补术对腹股沟疝的疗效对比[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 201-205.

Muchao Gao, Junjian Niu, Hailong Cui, Guotao Sheng. Comparison of effects between laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal repair and traditional tension-free repair in treating inguinal hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2026, 20(02): 201-205.

目的

比较腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(TAPP)和平片式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效,重点观察对术后疼痛、血清肿及复发的影响。

方法

本研究为回顾性队列研究。纳入2019年1月至2022年6月蚌埠市第二人民医院收治的腹股沟疝患者81例。根据手术方式的不同将其分为腹腔镜组(TAPP,n=43)及开放式组(平片式无张力疝修补术,n=38)。比较2组患者手术相关指标、疼痛程度、手术前后炎性因子水平变化及术后1年并发症发生情况。

结果

2组患者手术均获得成功。腹腔镜组手术时间长于开放式组[(61.59±10.42)min比(40.31±9.65)min,P<0.05],术后出血量少于开放式组[(12.18±2.59)ml比(29.04±4.75)ml,P<0.05],术后下床活动时间、术后排气时间及术后住院时间均短于开放式组[(6.75±1.18)h、(16.82±3.75)h、(4.16±0.98)d比(9.16±1.52)h、(22.04±4.17)h、(4.69±1.21)d,P均<0.05]。腹腔镜组患者术后6 h及1、3、7 d的疼痛视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分分别为(4.53±0.61)、(3.19±0.35)、(2.46±0.31)、(1.81±0.29)分,均低于开放式组的(5.27±0.68)、(3.52±0.39)、(2.73±0.30)、(2.14±0.34)分(P均<0.001)。腹腔镜组术后C反应蛋白、白细胞介素-6及基质金属蛋白酶-9水平均低于开放式组(P<0.001)。腹腔镜组Morales分型Ⅰ、Ⅱ型血清肿分别为3、1例;开放式组Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ型血清肿分别为7、2、1、1例,腹腔镜组血清肿分型低于开放式组(Z=5.269,P=0.022)。术后1年内,腹腔镜组复发1例(2.33%),开放式组复发2例(5.26%),2组复发率比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.488,P>0.05)。腹腔镜组其他并发症总发生率低于开放式组(4.65%比21.05%,χ2=5.015,P=0.025)。

结论

相比于平片式无张力疝修补术,TAPP治疗腹股沟疝可减轻患者术后疼痛,血清肿分型更低,但两种术式术后复发率相当。

Objective

To compare the effect of laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) and traditional tension-free repair in the treatment of inguinal hernia, with emphasis on the effects on postoperative pain, seroma and recurrence.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 81 patients with inguinal hernia admitted to the Second People's Hospital of Bengbu between January 2019 and June 2022 were included. The patients were divided into a laparoscopic group (TAPP, n=43) and an open group (traditional tension-free repair, n=38) according to the different surgical methods. The surgical-related indicators, pain degree, changes in inflammatory factor levels before and after surgery, and the incidence of complications 1-year after surgery were compared between the two groups of patients.

Results

The surgeries were successful in both groups. The surgical time in laparoscopic group was longer than that in open group [(61.59±10.42) min vs (40.31±9.65) min, P<0.05], and the postoperative blood loss was less than that in open group [(12.18±2.59) ml vs (29.04±4.75) ml, P<0.05], and the postoperative ambulation time, postoperative exhaust time and postoperative hospital stay were all shorter than those in open group [(6.75±1.18) h, (16.82±3.75) h, (4.16±0.98) d vs (9.16±1.52) h, (22.04±4.17) h, (4.69±1.21) d, all P<0.05]. The visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores in laparoscopic group at 6 h, 1 d, 3 d, and 7 d after surgery were (4.53±0.61) points, (3.19±0.35) points, (2.46±0.31) points and (1.81±0.29) points, which were lower than those in open group [(5.27±0.68) points, (3.52±0.39) points, (2.73±0.30) points, (2.14±0.34) points, all P<0.001]. The levels of CRP, IL-6 and MMP-9 in laparoscopic group were lower than those in open group (all P<0.001). In laparoscopic group, there were 3 cases of Morales type Ⅰ and 1 case of type Ⅱ seroma. In open group, there were 7 cases of type Ⅰ, 2 cases of type Ⅱ, 1 case of type Ⅲ and 1 case of type Ⅳ seroma. The degree of seroma in laparoscopic group was milder than that in open group (Z=5.269, P=0.022). Recurrence occurred in 1 case (2.33%) in laparoscopic group and 2 cases (5.26%) in open group within 1 year after surgery. There was no significant difference in recurrence rate between the two groups (χ2=0.488, P>0.05). The total incidence of other complications in the laparoscopic group was lower than that in the open group (4.65% vs 21.05%; χ2=5.015, P=0.025).

Conclusion

Compared with open tension-free repair, TAPP can better relieve the postoperative pain and reduce the incidence of seroma, but the recurrence rates of the two types of surgery are comparable.

表1 2组腹股沟疝患者的一般资料比较
表2 2组腹股沟疝患者手术相关指标比较(±s
表3 2组腹股沟疝患者术后疼痛视觉模拟评分法评分比较(分,±s
表4 2组腹股沟疝患者手术前后炎性应激因子水平比较(±s
表5 2组腹股沟疝患者术后血清肿Morales分型情况比较[例(%)]
表6 2组腹股沟疝患者术后其他并发症发生率比较[例(%)]
[1]
Ulutas ME, Yilmaz AH. Comparison of open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Hernia, 2025, 29(1): 179.
[2]
李明礼, 艾合买提江·牙生, 王志. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外与经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术安全性与可行性的对比研究:新疆的单中心研究[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2025, 33(10): 1113-1116.
[3]
张敏剑, 吴永友, 钟丰云, 等. 腹腔镜下完全腹膜外疝修补术与经腹腔腹膜前疝修补术治疗成人单侧初发腹股沟疝的效果比较[J]. 中国医药导报, 2023, 20(10): 84-87, 99.
[4]
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.
[5]
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与腹壁外科学组, 大中华腔镜疝外科学院. 腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术规范化操作指南[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2013, 33(7): 566-570.
[6]
Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H, et al. ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome[J]. Br J Anaesth, 1996, 77(2): 217-222.
[7]
谢允虎, 吴海明, 孙宁杰, 等. 改良腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术和腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术在腹股沟疝患者中应用效果比较[J]. 中国医师进修杂志, 2023, 46(4): 357-360.
[8]
游航, 陈旭, 段福生, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术疝囊横断与剥离治疗Ⅲ型腹股沟斜疝临床观察[J]. 重庆医学, 2024, 53(S2): 117-119.
[9]
Sakar B, Akgul N, Karaveli A, et al. Comparative analysis of absorbable tacker and suture techniques for peritoneal flap closure in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using the Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) approach: a retrospective observational cohort study[J]. BMC Surg, 2025, 26(1): 65.
[10]
陈柃池, 贾晓斌, 徐海进. 3D补片用于腹腔镜下经腹腹膜前疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效[J]. 中国内镜杂志, 2025, 31(7): 19-24.
[11]
李丰, 马铁祥, 曾剑, 等. 经腹腹腔镜腹膜前疝修补术治疗各型腹股沟复发疝的单中心经验[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2023, 32(10): 1499-1507.
[12]
王晨星, 薛佩, 李健文, 等. 应用个体化补片行腹腔镜手术治疗腹膜前植入补片复发疝可行性分析[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2025, 45(5): 553-558.
[13]
李宝玉, 刘宾, 万方鑫, 等. 局部麻醉下Lichtenstein,改良Kugel与全身麻醉下经腹腔腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术治疗老年人单侧原发性腹股沟疝的临床疗效比较[J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2025, 40(11): 879-882.
[14]
王杰, 郑才锋. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补中3D立体补片对减轻腹股沟疝患者术后疼痛的效果观察[J]. 贵州医药, 2022, 46(10): 1547-1549.
[15]
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.
[16]
张礼, 吴智明, 俞学群, 等. 经腹腔镜腹膜前间隙无张力修补术与巴西尼疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效比较[J]. 中国内镜杂志, 2025, 31(10): 83-90.
[17]
吴卫东, 王廷峰, 司仙科, 等. 单孔腹腔镜全腹膜外疝修补术在前列腺癌根治术后腹股沟疝中应用研究[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2023, 43(6): 683-687.
[1] 彭兵. 联合血管切除重建的腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术实践与探索[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2026, 20(1): 23-23.
[2] 戴红梅, 李双喜, 李子禹. 我国腹腔镜胃癌手术治疗现状与未来[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 103-107.
[3] 王萌, 管文贤. 我国腹腔镜胃癌根治关键技术与质量控制[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 108-110.
[4] 李玮璇, 杜峻峰, 李世拥. 我国腹腔镜胃癌根治术主要并发症与处理[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 111-114.
[5] 王瑞, 张建, 乔美美, 闫星宇, 赵世男. 完全腹腔镜经腹经膈肌裂孔入路SiewertⅡ型食管胃结合部腺癌根治术临床效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 121-124.
[6] 朱田雨, 施海, 杨洁. 预先小切口辅助腹腔镜根治术治疗进展期远端胃癌的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 130-133.
[7] 汝干, 翟春涛, 田昳程, 陈正荣. 腹腔镜下不同手术方式治疗cT1N0M0期胃癌的临床比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 134-137.
[8] 李广鑫, 权慧娟, 高志娟, 李良, 王肖君, 曹玉庆. 腹腔镜急诊切除与支架置入限期切除治疗梗阻性结直肠癌的临床效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 142-145.
[9] 范现英, 路萌, 刘晓晴, 张希为, 胡延伟, 连彦军. 腹腔镜结直肠癌切除经不同自然腔道标本取出术治疗女性患者的临床比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 146-149.
[10] 周放, 刘海晨, 王宇超, 郭健, 石志良, 周国强, 沈成龙. "三孔法"腹腔镜手术治疗急性乙状结肠穿孔的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 154-157.
[11] 陈玉, 韩戟, 杨力. CT血管成像对肠系膜下动脉分型评估及腹腔镜直肠癌手术的指导价值[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 162-165.
[12] 蒋春雷, 崔静, 周晨, 王少军, 魏晓为. 头尾侧联合入路腹腔镜根治术治疗右半结肠癌效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 166-169.
[13] 贺智恒, 姚德炯, 孙东方. 腹腔镜下胆囊切除术后胆瘘影响因素分析及风险预测模型的构建[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 175-178.
[14] 陈志, 童智慧, 张敬柱, 汪鹏. 荧光腹腔镜下经胆囊管行胆总管取石术治疗胆总管结石的临床探讨[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 179-182.
[15] 陆颖超, 黄锦山, 徐红星, 沈丹枫. 高危急性化脓性胆囊炎经肝胆囊穿刺引流术后择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术最佳时间的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 183-186.
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?