期刊文献+

腹腔镜下全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术与经正中线切口腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术的比较研究 被引量:165

Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Total Extraperitoneal Repair Versus Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair via Midline Incision
暂未订购
导出
摘要 目的比较腹腔镜下全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术(totalextraperitonealrepair,TEP)与经正中线切口腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的效果。方法2011年1月~2014年12月,94例成人腹股沟疝采用腹腔镜下完全腹膜外游离腹膜前间隙,放置补片(TEP组),83例成人腹股沟疝采用下腹正中小切口游离腹膜前间隙,放置补片(开放组),比较2组手术时间、住院时间、住院费用、术后应用止痛药物情况、血清肿与切口裂开情况等。结果TEP组手术时间(76±14)min,明旺长于开放组(47±8)min(t=16.623,P=0.000);住院费用(9568.95±1422.23)元,明显高于开放组(5327.75±662.76)元(t=24.88,P=0.000);开放组术后应用镇痛剂(15例vs.6例,X2=5.760,P=0.016)、切口脂肪液化裂开(4例VS.0例,P=0.046,)例数均明显高于TEP组;TEP组住院时间(4.9±0.6)d,与开放组(5.0±0.5)d无统计学差异(t=-1.195,P=0.234);2组血清肿无统计学差异(6例VS.1例,X2=2.937,P=0.087)。177例随访3~12个月,平均7.4月,2组均无疝复发、补片感染、慢性疼痛、睾丸萎缩等并发症发生。结论开放手术在手术时间和住院费用上较TEP有明短优势,但术后疼痛、切口并发症高于TEP组,更适合双侧疝及复发疝,对单侧初发疝的治疗无明显优势。 Objective To compare curative effects of laparoseopic total extraperitoneal repair (TEP) versus preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair via midline incision. Methods From January 2011 to December 2014, the TEP operation was conducted in 94 patients (TEP group) , during which the mesh was placed under total laparoscopie extraperitoneal approach, while the open operation was carried out in 83 patients (open group) , during which the mesh was placed into after preperitoneal space exposure via a midline incision. The operation time, length of hospital stay, cost of hospitalization, application of analgesics, seroroa, fat liquefaction and incision split were compared between the two groups. Results The operation time was significantly longer in the TEP group lhan that in the open group [ ( 76 ± 14) min vs. (47 ± 8 ) rain, t = 16. 623, P = 0. 000 ]. The cost of hospitalization was significantly higher in the TEPgroup than that in the open group [(9568.95 ±1422,23) yuan vs. (5327.75±662.76) yuan, t=24.881, P=0.O00]. The application rate of analgesics and incidence of fat liquefaction and incision split were significantly higher in the open group than those in the TEP group [ 15 vs. 6, X2 = 5. 760, P = 0.016 ; 4 vs, 0, P = 0. 046 ]. There was no significant difference between the TEP group and fhe open group in the postoperative hospital stay (4.9±0.6 days vs. 5.0±0.5 days, t = - 1. 195, P=0.234) and the incidence of seroma ( 6 vs. 1 , X2 = 2. 937, P = 0. 087 ) . All the 177 cases were followed up for 3 - 12 months ( mean, 7.4 months). No severe postoperative complication was encountered in both groups, such as recurrence, mesh infection, chronic pain after hernia repair, or testicle atrophy. Conclusions Open surgery is superior to TEP in operation time and cost of hospitalization hut has higher incidence of postoperative pain and incision complications, being suitable for bilateral hernia and recurrent hernia. It has no significant advantages for incipient unilateral inguinal hernia.
出处 《中国微创外科杂志》 CSCD 北大核心 2016年第2期118-121,共4页 Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery
基金 北京市卫生和计划生育委员会"北京市卫生系统高层次卫生技术人员培养计划"(项目编号:Z201412201712)
关键词 腹股沟疝 疝修补术 正中切口 腹膜前 腹腔镜 Inguinal hernia Herniorrhaphy Midline incision Preperitoneal Laparoscope
  • 相关文献

参考文献12

  • 1Amid PK. Groin hernia repair: open techniques. World J Surg, 2005, 29(8) : 1046 - 105l.
  • 2陈思梦.腹股沟疝无张力修补手术入路[J].中国实用外科杂志,2012,32(6):506-507. 被引量:16
  • 3陈双.开放式TEP疝修补术[J].中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版),2010,4(1):1-2. 被引量:46
  • 4无.成人腹股沟疝诊疗指南(2014年版)[J].中国实用外科杂志,2014,34(6):484-486. 被引量:191
  • 5Robeet J,Fitzgibbons,主编.马颂章.主译.疝外科学(第5版).北京:人民卫生出版社,2003.1—2.
  • 6Lichtenstein 1L. Herniorrhaphy. A personal experience with 6321 case. Am J Surg, 1987, 153(6):553-559.
  • 7Pierides G, Vironen J. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the Prnlene Hernia System and the Lichtenstein patch technique for inguinal hernia repair in long term: 2- and 5-year results. Am J Surg, 20li, 202(2) :188-193.
  • 8Nyhus LM. Individualization of hernia repair: a new era. Surgery, 1993, 114(1) :1 -2.
  • 9Nyhus LM. The posterior (preperitoneal) approach and iliopubic tract repair of inguinal and fermoral hernias - an update. Hernia, 2003,7 (2) :63 - 67.
  • 10Stuppa R, Diarra B, Verhaeghe P. Some problems encountered at reoperation following repair of groin hernias with preperitoneal prostheses. Hernia, 1998, 2(1) :35 - 38.

二级参考文献48

  • 1陈双,赖东明,杨斌,叶华.腹股沟疝无张力修补术前后入路前瞻性对照研究(附263例报告)[J].中国实用外科杂志,2006,26(11):831-833. 被引量:20
  • 2李健文,郑民华,李华青,张辉,胡伟国,王明亮,陆爱国.腹腔镜全腹膜外补片植入术中补片固定与不固定的随机对照试验[J].中华普通外科杂志,2007,22(6):440-442. 被引量:54
  • 3Gunal O,Gtirleyik E.Does chosen approach to the inguinal canal affect the outcome of hernial repair? [J] Surg Techuol Int,2009, 18(2):129-133.
  • 4Brandt-Kerkhof A,Van Mierlo M,Schep N,et al.Follow-up peri- od of 13 years after endoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of in- guinal hernias: a cohort study [J]. Surg Endosc, 2011, 25(5): 1624-1629.
  • 5Van Nieuwenhove Y,Vansteenkiste F,Vierendeels T,et al.Open preperitoneal hernia repair with the kugel patch: a prospective, multicentre study of 450 repairs[J]. Hernia,2007,11(1):9-13.
  • 6Pierides G, Vironen J.A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the Prolene Hernia System and the Lichtenstein patch technique for inguinal hernia repair in long term: 2- and 5-Year results [ J ]. Am J Surg,2011,202(2): 188-193.
  • 7Phillips EH, Arregui M, Carroll B J, et al. Incidence of complications following laparoscopic hernioplasty. Surg Endosc, 1995,9(1) :16 -21.
  • 8Dion YM, Morin J. Laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy. Can JSurg, 1992,35 (2) 209 - 212.
  • 9McKernan JB, Laws HL. Laparoscopic preperitoneal prosthetic repair of inguinal hernias. Surg Rounds, 1992,6:597 - 607.
  • 10Rutkow IM, Robbins AW. Mesh plus hernia repair: a follow-up report. Surgery,1995,117:597.

共引文献286

同被引文献804

引证文献165

二级引证文献881

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部