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) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (06) : 533 -536. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.06.013

所属专题: 文献

临床论著

不同手术方式治疗小儿腹股沟疝临床疗效
张小华1,(), 郭鹏1, 熊鑫1, 苏刚1   
  1. 1. 434300 湖北省公安县人民医院普外科
  • 收稿日期:2019-04-30 出版日期:2019-12-18
  • 通信作者: 张小华

Comparison of clinical efficacy of different surgical methods in the treatment of inguinal hernia in children

Xiaohua Zhang1,(), Peng Guo1, Xin Xiong1, Gang Su1   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, People's Hospital of Gongan County, Hubei, Gongan 434300, China
  • Received:2019-04-30 Published:2019-12-18
  • Corresponding author: Xiaohua Zhang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhang Xiaohua, Email:
引用本文:

张小华, 郭鹏, 熊鑫, 苏刚. 不同手术方式治疗小儿腹股沟疝临床疗效[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(06): 533-536.

Xiaohua Zhang, Peng Guo, Xin Xiong, Gang Su. Comparison of clinical efficacy of different surgical methods in the treatment of inguinal hernia in children[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(06): 533-536.

目的

比较腹腔镜手术方式、皮横纹下横行小切口术及传统开放手术治疗小儿腹股沟疝临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2012年1月至2019年1月,湖北省公安县人民医院住院治疗的小儿腹股沟疝396例患者的临床资料,其中行腹腔镜手术治疗124例(A组)、行皮横纹下横行小切口术134例(B组)、行传统开放手术138例(C组),比较3组患者手术效果及并发症发生情况。

结果

3组患儿手术时间、术中出血量、手术切口长度以及住院时间等情况比较,差异有统计学意义(F=1021.469、3426.029、1003.086、945.457,P均<0.001);组间两两比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3组患儿自主活动时间、术后排气时间以及疼痛评分情况比较,差异均有统计学意义(F=2051.296、519.327、232.345,P均<0.001);组间两两比较,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。3组患儿术后并发症总发生率比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=11.704,P=0.003);A组和B组并发症发生率均显著低于C组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);而A组与B组并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

相较于传统开放手术及皮横纹下横行小切口术,腹腔镜手术治疗小儿腹股沟疝具有手术时间短、创伤小,术后恢复快,安全性高等优点,值得临床上进一步推广应用。

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic surgery, small transverse incision under the transverse stripes surgery and traditional open surgery for the treatment of children with inguinal hernia.

Methods

The clinical data of 396 children with inguinal hernia treated by the People's Hospital of Gongan County from January 2012 to January 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 124 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (group A), 134 patients underwent small transverse incision under the transverse stripes surgery (group B) and 138 cases underwent traditional open surgery (group C). The surgical outcomes and complications of the three groups were compared.

Results

The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of incision, length of hospital stay, the time of activity, exhaust time and pain scores in the three groups were statistically significant (P<0.05). After multiple comparison, the differences were significant among the three groups. The complication rate of group A and group B (1.65%, 3.73%) was significantly lower than that of group C (10.86%) (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between group A and group B (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with traditional open surgery and small transverse incision under the transverse stripes surgery, laparoscopic surgery inguinal hernia has the advantages of short operation time, small trauma, quick recovery and high safety. It is worthy of further clinical application.

表1 3组患儿手术指标情况比较(±s
表2 3组患儿手术效果比较(±s
表3 3组患儿并发症发生率比较
[1]
Tabrizian F, Raisolsadat SM, Houshmand B, et al. Assessment of the necessity of sac high ligation in inguinal hernia open surgery among children[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2013, 48(3): 547-549.
[2]
李辉,徐业凤,陈焰, 等. 小儿疝气治疗中腹横纹小切口手术的应用及效果评估[J]. 中国医药导刊, 2016, 18(12): 1233-1234.
[3]
Miyake H, Fukumoto K, Yamoto M, et al. Comparison of percutaneous extrape "toneal closure(LPEC) and open repair for pediatric ingIlinal hemia: experience "a single institution with over 1000 cases[J]. Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(4): 1466-1472.
[4]
Feng S, Zhao L, Liao Z, et al. Open versus laparoscopic inguinal herniotomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on postoperative complications[J]. Surg Lapamsc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2015, 25(4): 275-280.
[5]
Huang CJ, Sun HP. Nonligation of indirect hernia sac in senior male patients with dilated internal ring[J]. Formos J Surg, 2013, 46(3): 76-78.
[6]
Uchida H, Kawashima H, Goto C, et al. Inguinal hernia repair in children using singl-eincision laparoscopic-assisted percutaneous extra peritoneal closure[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2010, 45(12): 2386-2389.
[7]
Kim S, Hui T. Laparoscopically assisted repair of inguinal hernia through a micro-incision and extra-peritoneal division and ligation of the hernia sac[J]. Pediatr Surg Int, 2013, 29(4): 331-334.
[8]
侯崇智,卞军. 施伟栋.等.腹腔镜下单通道自制疝气针完全腹膜外疝囊高位结扎术治疗小儿腹股沟斜疝163例[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2014, 14(6): 519-521.
[9]
Esposito C, Escolino M, TuITa F, et al. Cement concepts in the management of inguinal hemia and hydrocele in pediatric patients in laparoscopic era[J]. Semin Pediatr Surg, 2016, 25(4): 232-240.
[10]
王海刚,李莉蕊,李燕书, 等. 单孔腹腔镜与开放手术治疗小儿腹股沟斜疝对比研究[J]. 河北医药, 2013, 35: 2170-2171.
[11]
张振武,曹振杰,王涛, 等. 腹腔镜全腹膜外疝囊结扎术在小儿斜疝中的应用[J/CD]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2015, 8(6): 53-56.
[12]
刘琳,李索林. 腹腔镜技术诊治小儿腹股沟疝的演化[J]. 中华小儿外科杂志, 2016, 37(10): 796-800.
[13]
韦建英,李春雨,李茵. 小儿腹股沟疝外科不同术式的疗效分析[J]. 河北医药, 2014, 36(9): 1362-1364.
[14]
张晶. 不同手术方式治疗小儿腹股沟疝的临床效果分析[J]. 中外医疗, 2018, 37(10): 42-43, 51.
[15]
章建民. 腹横纹下小切口手术与传统手术治疗小儿腹股沟疝的对比研究[J]. 中国现代医生, 2015, 53(30): 28-30.
[16]
陈能亮,李目,汤华军. 不同手术方式治疗小儿腹股沟疝的临床疗效比较[J]. 实用临床医药杂志, 2016, 20(21): 118-119.
[17]
Saka R, Okuyama H, Sasaki T, et al. Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure for inguinal hernias and hydroceles in children: a comparison with traditional open repair[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2014, 24(1): 55-58.
[18]
Esposito C, St Peter SD, Escolino M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia r-epair in pediatric patients: a systematic review[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2014, 24(11): 811-818.
[19]
Garvey EM, Ostlie DJ. HiataI and paraesophageal hemia repair in pediatric patients[J]. Semin Pediatr Surg, 2017, 26(2): 61-66.
[20]
Chang YT, Wang JY, Lee JY, et al. One-trocar laparoscopic transpefitoneal closure of inguinal hernia in children[J]. World J Surg, 2008, 32(11): 2459-2463.
[1] 燕速, 霍博文. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治性切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 13-13.
[2] 母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[3] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[4] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[5] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[6] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[7] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[8] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[9] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[10] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[11] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[12] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
[13] 郭兵, 王万里, 何凯, 黄汉生. 腹腔镜下肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 143-143.
[14] 李凯, 陈淋, 苏怀东, 向涵, 张伟. 超微创器械在改良单孔腹腔镜巨大肝囊肿开窗引流及胆囊切除中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 144-144.
[15] 魏丽霞, 张安澜, 周宝勇, 李明. 腹腔镜下Ⅲb型肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 145-145.
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?