Comparative study on clinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic TAPP and TEP in the treatment of adult inguinal hernia

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2020.03.011

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the clinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic trans-abdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) and laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal hernia repair (TEP) hernia repair in the treatment of adult inguinal hernia.

Methods

A total of 320 adult patients with inguinal hernia who were admitted to Nanjing Qixia District Hospital from March 2016 to March 2019 were selected and divided into TAPP group and TEP group according to treatment methods, with 160 cases in each group. The operation time and clinical effect, the incidence of complications and recurrence, and the psychological status of the two groups were compared.

Results

There were no differences in the operation time of bilateral hernias, the operation time of unilateral hernia, the duration of pain, and the time of anal exhaustion between the TAPP group and TEP group (P>0.05), but the hospitalization length of the TAPP group was lower than that of the TEP group (P<0.05); There was no difference in the incidence of complications between the TAPP group and TEP group (P>0.05), but the recurrence rate of the TEP group was lower than that of the TAPP group (P<0.05); The mental state of the TEP group after treatment was significantly better than that of the TAPP group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

In the treatment of adult patients with inguinal hernia, laparoscopic TAPP and TEP have high safety and significant therapeutic effect, which is worthy of extensive clinical application and promotion.

Key words: Hernia, inguinal, Herniorrhaphy, Laparoscopes, Security

Guibao Shi, Qigen Huang, Hua Zhao, Decai Yu. Comparative study on clinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic TAPP and TEP in the treatment of adult inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(03): 254-256.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2020.03.011

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2020/V14/I03/254

Figures/Tables 3

References 15

[1]	刘昶，顾岩，陈革, 等. 腹股沟疝修补术的金标准——Lichtenstein手术、TAPP或TEP?[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2017, 37(11): 1236-1237.
[2]	郝晓晖，何子锐，李健文, 等. 腹腔镜手术治疗老年腹股沟疝2771例分析[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2018, 38(8): 906-910.
[3]	欧阳剑波，黄耿文，何文, 等. 多学科合作快速康复外科理念在腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术围手术期的应用[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2017, 26(4): 506-513.
[4]	王琪，黄鹤光，陈燕昌, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腔腹膜前修补术和经内环入路Kugel手术治疗腹股沟疝疗效比较研究[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2017, 37(11): 1258-1261.
[5]	李义亮，王志，克力木, 等. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外补片植入术与Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效对比研究[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2017, 20(8): 928.
[6]	宋伟，童彦炜，章跃滨, 等. 腹腔镜微创技术和传统手术治疗小儿腹股沟斜疝单中心对照研究[J]. 中华男科学杂志, 2018, 24(6): 568-570.
[7]	朱熠林，张光永，刘雨辰, 等. 成人腹股沟疝无张力修补术后手术部位感染的病原学分析与耐药性特点[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2018, 56(4): 305.
[8]	黄国增，陈荫曾，李旺, 等. 免钉合器腹腔镜下经腹腔腹膜前法腹股沟疝修补术的临床研究[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2017, 33(13): 2180-2183.
[9]	唐石驹，吴水来，董红平, 等. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补对中青年男性腹股沟疝疗效的影响[J]. 中国内镜杂志, 2017, 23(12): 83-87.
[10]	李瑞斌，李艳茹，吴攀, 等. 自制穿刺带线针辅助单孔腹腔镜疝囊高位结扎术治疗小儿腹股沟疝[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2017, 26(10): 1230-1236.
[11]	Shoar S, Poliakin L, Khorgami Z, et al. Efficacy and Safety of the Over-the-Scope Clip(OTSC) System in the Management of Leak and Fistula After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review.[J]. Obesity Surgery, 2017, 27(9): 2410-2418.
[12]	程家平，文坤明，李建国, 等. 腹腔镜经腹腔腹膜前疝修补与开放式网塞填充式无张力修补术治疗腹股沟复发疝对比分析[J]. 重庆医学, 2017, 46(20): 112-114.
[13]	曹金鑫，王明刚，朱熠林, 等. 应用腹腔镜经腹腔腹膜前疝修补术治疗腹股沟复发疝临床价值探讨[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2017, 37(37): 1253.
[14]	喻思源，刘枫，崔洁. 应用光电容积脉搏波监测小儿腹腔镜疝修补术中伤害性刺激强度变化[J]. 第二军医大学学报, 2017, 38(6): 752-756.
[15]	Muñoz-Duyos A, Navarro-Luna A, Pardo-Aranda F, et al. Gracilis Muscle Interposition for Rectourethral Fistula After Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Prospective Evaluation and Long-term Follow-up [J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2017, 60(4): 393-398.

组别	例数	双侧疝手术时长(min)	单侧疝手术时长(min)	疼痛持续时长(d)	肛门排气时间(h)	住院时长(d)
TAPP组	160	74.2±14.2	47.6±18.9	1.73±0.34	8.55±1.63	1.23±0.76
TEP组	160	73.1±16.9	46.5±14.3	1.74±0.52	8.56±2.31	2.56±0.83
t值	?	1.293	2.625	2.923	1.746	10.637
P值	?	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05

组别	例数	双侧疝手术时长(min)	单侧疝手术时长(min)	疼痛持续时长(d)	肛门排气时间(h)	住院时长(d)
TAPP组	160	74.2±14.2	47.6±18.9	1.73±0.34	8.55±1.63	1.23±0.76
TEP组	160	73.1±16.9	46.5±14.3	1.74±0.52	8.56±2.31	2.56±0.83
t值	?	1.293	2.625	2.923	1.746	10.637
P值	?	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05

组别	例数	切口感染	疼痛	皮下血肿	总并发症	复发
TAPP组	160	1(0.6)	4(2.5)	5(3.1)	10(6.2)	0
TEP组	160	2(1.2)	3(1.9)	6(3.8)	11(6.9)	0
P值	?	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05

组别	例数	切口感染	疼痛	皮下血肿	总并发症	复发
TAPP组	160	1(0.6)	4(2.5)	5(3.1)	10(6.2)	0
TEP组	160	2(1.2)	3(1.9)	6(3.8)	11(6.9)	0
P值	?	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	>0.05

组别	例数	SDS评分		SAS评分
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗后	治疗前	治疗后
TAPP组	160	54.2±3.5	36.6±3.3	55.7±3.3	36.4±3.1
TEP组	160	54.5±3.6	35.4±2.9	55.5±3.6	35.5±2.7
t值	?	2.403	6.829	1.716	5.62
P值	?	>0.05	<0.05	>0.05	<0.05

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export