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) : 221 -225. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2026.02.017

循证医学

影响造口旁疝修补术后复发相关因素的系统评价及Meta分析
刘千什, 刘昶()   
  1. 150081 哈尔滨医科大学附属第四医院普通外科三病房
  • 收稿日期:2026-02-26 出版日期:2026-04-18
  • 通信作者: 刘昶
  • 基金资助:
    机器人技术与系统国家重点实验室开放基金(SKLRS-2020-KF-07)

Influencing factors for recurrence after parastomal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Qianshi Liu, Chang Liu()   

  1. Department of General Surgery III, Harbin Medical University Affiliated Fourth Hospital, Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, China
  • Received:2026-02-26 Published:2026-04-18
  • Corresponding author: Chang Liu
引用本文:

刘千什, 刘昶. 影响造口旁疝修补术后复发相关因素的系统评价及Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 221-225.

Qianshi Liu, Chang Liu. Influencing factors for recurrence after parastomal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2026, 20(02): 221-225.

造口旁疝修补术后远期复发率居高不下,其影响因素仍存争议。本研究系统检索了PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library及CNKI等中外文数据库自建库至2026年2月的相关临床研究,采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评价文献质量,并运用R语言进行Meta分析与定性系统评价,旨在为优化临床决策提供循证依据。研究最终纳入4项高质量文献,共542例患者。Meta分析结果显示,与传统的Keyhole术式相比,Sugarbaker术式在降低远期复发风险方面展现出明显的临床优势(OR=0.58,95% CI 0.26~1.27)。进一步研究表明,患者自身的代谢状态(如体重指数≥30 kg/m2的肥胖、糖尿病及高龄)以及合并炎症性肠病是导致修补术后复发的核心独立危险因素。此外,手术部位感染、血清肿等严重的近期并发症亦会显著增加远期复发率。综上,合理选择力学分布更优的修补术式(如Sugarbaker技术),并高度重视围手术期的减重、血糖控制及感染预防,是降低造口旁疝修补术后复发风险的关键策略。

The long-term recurrence rate after parastomal hernia repair remains high, and its influencing factors are still controversial. To provide evidence-based support for optimizing clinical decision-making, we systematically searched databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI for relevant clinical studies from the establishment of the databases to February 2026. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and Meta-analysis alongside qualitative systematic review was performed using R software. Four high-quality studies comprising 542 patients were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with the Keyhole technique, the Sugarbaker technique showed a significant clinical advantage in reducing long-term recurrence risk (OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.26-1.27). Further analysis indicated that patient systemic metabolic status (such as obesity with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, diabetes, and advanced age) and inflammatory bowel disease were core independent risk factors for postoperative recurrence. Furthermore, severe short-term complications like surgical site infection and seroma significantly increased the long-term recurrence rate. In conclusion, selecting a biomechanically superior repair technique (e.g., Sugarbaker) and strictly managing perioperative weight, glycemic control, and infection prevention are crucial strategies to minimize the risk of parastomal hernia recurrence.

图1 文献检索与筛选流程图
表1 纳入研究的基本特征与随访数据汇总
表2 纳入研究的方法学质量评价(纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评分)
图2 Sugarbaker与Keyhole术式修补造口旁疝术后复发风险比较的森林图
表3 患者临床病理特征对复发影响的危险因素汇总
[1]
Antoniou SA, Agresta F, Garcia Alamino JM, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias[J]. Hernia, 2018, 22(1): 183-198.
[2]
Johnsen TB, Stornes T, Ystgaard B, et al. Sandwich parastomal hernia repair, a prospective observational study[J]. Hernia, 2025, 29(1): 211.
[3]
Sugarbaker PH. Peritoneal approach to prosthetic mesh repair of paraostomy hernias[J]. Ann Surg, 1985, 201(3): 344-346.
[4]
Hansson BM, Slater NJ, Van Der Velden AS, et al. Surgical techniques for parastomal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature[J]. Ann Surg, 2012, 255(4): 685-695.
[5]
Holland AM, Lorenz WR, Mead BS, et al. Long-term outcomes after open parastomal hernia repair at a high-volume center[J]. Surg Endosc, 2025, 39(1): 639-648.
[6]
Hotouras A, Murphy J, Thaha M, et al. The persistent challenge of parastomal herniation: a review of the literature and future developments[J]. Colorectal Dis, 2013, 15(5): e202-214.
[7]
Makarainen-Uhlback E, Vironen J, Falenius V, et al. Parastomal Hernia: A Retrospective Nationwide Cohort Study Comparing Different Techniques with Long-Term Follow-Up[J]. World J Surg, 2021, 45(6): 1742-1749.
[8]
Barranquero AG, Espert JJ, Llompart Coll MM, et al. Analysis of recurrence and risk factors in laparoscopic sandwich technique for parastomal hernia repair[J]. Surg Endosc, 2023, 37(12): 9125-9131.
[9]
Djebbara-Bozo N, Zinther NB, Sogaard A, et al. Outcomes after surgical repair of primary parastomal hernia[J]. Hernia, 2025, 29(1): 72.
[10]
Bennett WC, Maskal SM, Conner AS, et al. Characterizing a clinically significant radiographic parastomal hernia recurrence: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2025, 39(10): 6773-6784.
[11]
López-Cano M, Lozoya-Trujillo R, Quiroga S, et al. Use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Hernia, 2012, 16(6): 661-667.
[12]
Antoniou GA, Muysoms FE, Deerenberg EB. Updated Guideline on Abdominal Wall Closure from the European and American Hernia Societies: Transferring Recommendations to Clinical Practice for Vascular Surgeons[J]. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2023, 65(6): 774-777.
[13]
Cobb WS, Burns JM, Kercher KW, et al. Normal intraabdominal pressure in healthy adults[J]. J Surg Res, 2005, 129(2): 231-235.
[14]
Henriksen NA, Yadete DH, Sorensen LT, et al. Connective tissue alteration in abdominal wall hernia[J]. Br J Surg, 2011, 98(2): 210-219.
[15]
Klinge U, Zheng H, Si Z, et al. Expression of the extracellular matrix proteins collagen I, collagen III and fibronectin and matrix metalloproteinase-1 and -13 in the skin of patients with inguinal hernia[J]. Eur Surg Res, 1999, 31(6): 480-490.
[16]
Kazemi A, Fathy M, Jahanian A, et al. The role of MMPs and TIMPs in regenerative medicine: From pathological ECM remodeling to therapeutic applications[J]. Biomed Pharmacother, 2025, 191: 118457.
[1] 张颖, 赵筱卓, 程琳, 王艺雯, 王成, 杜伟力, 沈余明, 陈辉. 采用游离皮瓣修复胫骨远端骨外露创面的临床疗效及影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2026, 21(01): 20-27.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 宋再桪, 胡锦中, 殷秋萍, 陈艺凌, 党天安, 牟泽中, 徐晨阳, 姜昊文. 凝血酶原时间与膀胱癌患者接受内镜下冷冻消融治疗后复发的相关性分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 147-153.
[5] 邓瑞锋, 程璐, 刘远灵, 郑秋平, 刘溪, 江文聪, 江敏耀, 习明. 基于Logistic回归构建一期输尿管通路鞘置入失败的预测模型[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 171-178.
[6] 王书翰, 任振, 刘虎, 吴昊, 潘晨, 吴立胜. 腹腔镜Sugarbaker技术修补造口旁疝关键细节优化及近远期并发症处理分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 142-148.
[7] 于昆, 司仙科, 郑侃, 陈志升, 李森, 杨佳华, 李炜. 单孔腹腔镜完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 168-173.
[8] 赵发宽, 梁伟纲, 杨义明, 祁木锐, 段应海. 腔镜定位后逆向穿刺法建立操作空间在完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 174-177.
[9] 章忆晖, 袁廷东, 穆林松, 吕忠船. 国产生物补片在腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术中的有效性及安全性[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 178-182.
[10] 宋云, 陈光海, 杜尖. Lichtenstein术与腹腔镜经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术的疗效、康复及成本效益对比[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 195-200.
[11] 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.
[12] 吴杰嵘, 严庆, 胡健垣, 陈焕伟. 复发性肝细胞癌再次手术切除与射频消融临床疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2026, 15(02): 211-218.
[13] 张维娜, 潘亚娟, 徐敏. 晚期消化系统癌症手术患者器官/腔隙感染的风险预测模型的建立[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(02): 120-124.
[14] 李晨阳, 汪涛, 徐忠瑞, 黄福秀, 李淑玲, 徐衍, 周旋, 赵慧, 张宁宁, 陈超. 急性下消化道出血患者安全出院风险评分的构建与验证[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(02): 156-161.
[15] 单子凤, 罗峪梅, 郭慧丽. 成人上消化道尖锐异物内镜下取出术的并发症发生率及危险因素[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(02): 162-166.
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?