Clinical efficacy of different surgical procedures for inguinal hernia and analysis of its influencing factors

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.01.015

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the safety and efficacy of traditional open inguinal hernia repair and laparoscopic inguinal hernia tension-free repair.

Methods

The clinical data of 124 patients who underwent inguinal hernia repair in The First People's Hospital of Foshan, People's Hospital of Shiyan and Huadu District People's Hospital of Guangzhou from March 2014 to March 2017 were collected and divided into 2 group according to different surgical procedures.

Results

The operation time of traditional open inguinal hernia repair group is lower than that of the laparoscopic tension-free repair group, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.01). There were no significant differences in foreign body sensation, hematoma and scrotal effusion between the 2 groups (P>0.05). When comparing incision infection, urinary retention and postoperative recurrence, the traditional inguinal hernia repair group was lower than that of laparoscopic tension-free repair group (P<0.05). There was a correlation between preoperative comorbidities and postoperative complications.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic tension-free hernia repair is a safe and effective method for inguinal hernia repair, and strengthening the treatment of preoperative complications is helpful to improve the curative effect of inguinal hernia repair.

Key words: Hernia, inguinal, Different procedures, Complications, Prognostic factors

Liang Chen, Keqiang Ma, Bo Lin, Hao Chen, Tiansheng Cao, Jian Wang, Wenwei Zhang, Shengmin Zhang, Laibin Zou, Hongsheng Wu, Liang Lin, Tingting Tang, Qing-qing He, Guoyong Fan, Jian Zhang. Clinical efficacy of different surgical procedures for inguinal hernia and analysis of its influencing factors[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(01): 54-57.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2019.01.015

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2019/V13/I01/54

Figures/Tables 2

References 25

[1]	Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG, Amid PK, et al. The tension-free hernioplasty[J]. Am J Surg, 1989, 157(2): 188-193.
[2]	Metzger J, Vogelbach P, Lutz N, et al. The Lichtenstein inguinal hernia-plasty: a simple and complication-free technique, especially suited for ambulatory surgery[J]. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd, 1997, 114(2): 603-606.
[3]	Trabucco EE. The office hernioplasty and the Trabucco repair.[J]. Ann Itai Chir, 1993, 64(2): 127-129.
[4]	Fleming WR, Elliott TB, Jones RM, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair with the Shouldice technique[J]. Br J Surg, 2001, 88(9): 1183.
[5]	Jenkins ED, Yom V, Melman L, et al. Prospective evaluation of adhesion characteristics to intraperitoneal mesh and adhesiolysis- related complications during laparoscopic re-exploration after prior ventral hernia repair[J]. Surg Endosc, 2010, 24(12): 3002-3007.
[6]	Ferzli G, Sayad P, Huie F, et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal herniorrhaphy: A 5-year experience[J]. Surg Endosc, 1998, 12(11): 1311-1313.
[7]	Lau H, Patil NG, Yuen WK, et al. Urinary retention following endoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty[J]. Surg Endosc, 2002, 16(11): 1547-1550.
[8]	Rutkow IM. Surgical operations in the United States. Then(1983) and now(1994)[J]. Arch Surg, 1997, 132(9): 983.
[9]	Frey DM, Wildisen A, Hamel C T, et al. Randomized clinical trial of Lichtenstein's operation versus mesh plug for inguinal hernia repair[J]. Br J Surg, 2007, 94(1): 36-41.
[10]	Miyazaki K, Nakamura F, Narita Y, et al. Comparison of Bassini Repair and Mesh-Plug Repair for Primary Inguinal Hernia: A Retrospective Study[J]. Surg Today, 2001, 31(7): 610-614.
[11]	Sivasankaran MV, Pham T, Divino CM. Incidence and risk factors for urinary retention following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair[J]. Am J Surg, 2014, 207(2): 288-292.
[12]	高杰, 邓为民. 老年人急诊疝修补术的预后因素分析[J]. 华夏医学, 2008, 21(3): 480-481.
[13]	Rosemar A, Anger_SU, Rosengren A, et al. Effect of Body Mass Index on Groin Hernia Surgery[J]. Ann Surg, 2010, 252(2): 397-401.
[14]	何佳, 于田强, 王宁, 等. 不同手术方式治疗腹股沟疝的临床对比分析[J]. 浙江医学教育, 2017, 16(03): 56-58.
[15]	严聪, 吴雄辉, 严冰, 等. 传统疝修补术与平片无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的对比性临床研究[J]. 中国医学创新, 2016, 13(27): 98-101.
[16]	谢兵, 陈宇飞, 栾冠楠, 等. 开放式腹膜前间隙修补术与Lichtenstein修补术治疗腹股沟疝的比较[J]. 现代生物医学进展, 2015, 15(36): 7124-7127.
[17]	周志斌. 无张力疝修补手术治疗成人疝的临床价值分析[J]. 当代医学, 2015, 21(25): 96-97.
[18]	谢浩亮, 司徒华耀, 张国烈. 填充式无张力腹股沟疝修补术的临床分析[J]. 包头医学院学报, 2015, 31(5): 62-63.
[19]	余润华. 无张力疝修补术后并发症预防及处理体会[J]. 当代医学, 2015, 21(4): 23-24.
[20]	刘桂法. 应用传统腹股沟疝修补术和无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效分析[J]. 当代医学, 2014, 20(16): 94-95.
[21]	葛平刚, 张珊珊. 腹股沟疝无张力修补术116例术后并发症原因及防治分析[J]. 中国实用医药, 2014, 9(7): 133-135.
[22]	赵景林, 李晓萍, 李尚仁, 等. 不同方法治疗腹股沟疝的疗效对比研究[J]. 中国现代医生, 2013, 51(22): 156-157,160.
[23]	张跃平, 黄兵, 张敏. 腹股沟无张力疝修补术并发症的防治[J]. 昆明医科大学学报, 2013, 34(11): 157,169.
[24]	王民. 无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝术后并发症的诊治分析[J]. 中国医学工程, 2012, 20(9): 138-139.
[25]	胡明高, 李向国, 郭彪, 等. 开放式与腹腔镜全腹膜外疝修补术的对照研究[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志, 2014, 21(11): 1431-1435.

临床资料	对照组			试验组
临床资料	例数	术后并发症(例)	P值	例数	术后并发症(例)	P值
年龄	?	?	?	?	?	?
<60岁	19	3	NS	23	3	NS
≥60岁	39	7	NS	43	4	NS
体质量指数	?	?	?	?	?	?
18.5~24.9(kg/m²)	23	5	NS	29	2	NS
<18.5或>24.9(kg/m²)	35	5	NS	37	5	NS
病程	?	?	?	?	?	?
<1年	27	4	NS	41	4	NS
≥1年	31	6	NS	25	3	NS
疝类型	?	?	?	?	?	?
直疝	15	2	NS	17	2	NS
斜疝	43	8	NS	49	5	NS
术前合并症	?	?	?	?	?	?
+	16	7	0.004	19	5	0.028
-	42	3	0.004	47	2	0.028

临床资料	对照组			试验组
临床资料	例数	术后并发症(例)	P值	例数	术后并发症(例)	P值
年龄	?	?	?	?	?	?
<60岁	19	3	NS	23	3	NS
≥60岁	39	7	NS	43	4	NS
体质量指数	?	?	?	?	?	?
18.5~24.9(kg/m²)	23	5	NS	29	2	NS
<18.5或>24.9(kg/m²)	35	5	NS	37	5	NS
病程	?	?	?	?	?	?
<1年	27	4	NS	41	4	NS
≥1年	31	6	NS	25	3	NS
疝类型	?	?	?	?	?	?
直疝	15	2	NS	17	2	NS
斜疝	43	8	NS	49	5	NS
术前合并症	?	?	?	?	?	?
+	16	7	0.004	19	5	0.028
-	42	3	0.004	47	2	0.028

组别	例数	手术时间(min,±s)	切口感染[例(%)]	尿潴留[例(%)]	异物感[例(%)]	血肿[例(%)]	阴囊积液[例(%)]	复发[例(%)]
试验组	66	46.36±5.14	0	0	3(4.54)	2(3.03)	3(4.54)	1(1.52)
对照组	58	62.29±6.81	6(10.34)	5(8.62)	4(6.9)	3(5.17)	5(8.62)	7(12.07)
P	?	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05

组别	例数	手术时间(min,±s)	切口感染[例(%)]	尿潴留[例(%)]	异物感[例(%)]	血肿[例(%)]	阴囊积液[例(%)]	复发[例(%)]
试验组	66	46.36±5.14	0	0	3(4.54)	2(3.03)	3(4.54)	1(1.52)
对照组	58	62.29±6.81	6(10.34)	5(8.62)	4(6.9)	3(5.17)	5(8.62)	7(12.07)
P	?	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export