探讨智能化患者自控镇痛（Ai-PCA）与常规镇痛对腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后患者的镇痛效果，系统分析不同镇痛模式在疼痛控制、镇痛相关并发症、术后早期康复等方面的差异。

本研究为回顾性队列研究。选取2025年7月—2026年1月，北京大学第一医院太原医院疝和腹壁外科完成腹腔镜TAPP修补术，并且术后使用静脉自控镇痛的有完整病历资料的60例患者。根据术后镇痛方案分为智能镇痛组（Ai-PCA智能镇痛泵，n=30）和常规镇痛组（传统电子自控镇痛泵，n=30）。比较2组患者疼痛、不适的视觉模拟评分法（VAS）评分、镇痛相关并发症（恶心呕吐、口干等）、术后康复指标、患者满意度。

重复测量方差分析显示，智能镇痛组术后2、6、12、24、48 h疼痛、不适的VAS评分均显著低于常规镇痛组（F_组间=32.15、42.68，均P<0.05，组间效应偏η²=0.358、0.422）。智能镇痛组镇痛相关并发症总发生率13.33%（4/30）较常规镇痛组43.33%（13/30）更低（P<0.05，Cramer's V=0.333）。智能镇痛组首次排气时间、首次下床活动时间、住院时间均明显短于常规镇痛组，差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05，Cohen's d=1.78、1.43、0.97）。智能镇痛组患者满意度较常规镇痛组更高（P<0.05，Cramer's V=0.268）。

智能镇痛系统用于腹股沟疝修补术后，可有效控制疼痛，提高术后舒适度，降低术后镇痛相关并发症发生率，加速患者早期康复，显著提高患者满意度。

To investigate the analgesic efficacy of artificial intelligence- patient-controlled analgesia (Ai-PCA) versus conventional analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, and to systematically analyze the differences between these two analgesic modalities in terms of pain control, analgesia-related complications, and early postoperative recovery.

This study was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 60 patients who underwent laparoscopic TAPP repair with postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and complete medical records in the Department of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery, Peking University First Hospital Taiyuan Hospital between July 2025 and January 2026 were selected. Based on the postoperative analgesia protocol, patients were divided into an intelligent analgesia group (using an AI-PCA smart analgesia pumps, n=30) and a conventional analgesia group (using a traditional electronic PCA pumps, n=30). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain and discomfort, analgesia-related complications (nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, etc.), postoperative rehabilitation indicators, and patient satisfaction were compared between the two groups.

Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that the VAS scores for pain and discomfort at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively were significantly lower in the intelligent analgesia group compared with the conventional analgesia group (Between-group F=32.15, 42.68; both P<0.05; and partial η² for between- group effects=0.358, 0.422). In the intelligent analgesia group, the overall incidence of analgesia-related complications was 13.33% (4/30), which was significantly lower than that in the conventional analgesia group (43.33%, 13/30) (P<0.05; Cramer's V=0.333). The time to first flatus, the time to first ambulation, and the length of hospital stay in the intelligent analgesia group were all significantly shorter than those in the conventional analgesia group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05; Cohen's d=1.78, 1.43, and 0.97, respectively). Patient satisfaction in the intelligent analgesia group was higher than that in the conventional analgesia group (P<0.05; Cramer's V=0.268).

The application of an intelligent analgesia system after inguinal hernia repair can effectively control postoperative pain, enhance postoperative comfort, reduce the incidence of postoperative analgesia-related complications, accelerate early patient recovery, and significantly improve patient satisfaction.