腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术、腹腔镜经腹膜前疝修补术与开放式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的效果比较

摘要
图/表
参考文献(18)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (0 KB) HTML (38 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的探索腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术（TEP）、腹腔镜经腹膜前疝修补术（TAPP）与开放式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的效果，分析不同手术方式对患者复发、外周血C 反应蛋白（CRP）及白介素-6（IL-6）水平的影响。方法选取2019年2月—2020年6月北京市仁和医院普外二科收治的159 例腹股沟疝患者进行回顾性分析，根据手术方法分为三组，观察1 组的53 例患者行TEP 术，观察2 组的53 例患者行TAPP 术，对照组的53 例患者行开放式无张力疝修补术。比较三组患者的术中出血量、手术时间、术后下床活动时间、住院时间；比较三组患者的血清指标、疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分；比较三组患者的并发症总发生率及复发率。结果观察1 组和观察2组的手术时间、术后下床活动时间、IL-6 比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；观察1 组的术中出血量少于观察2 组，住院时间短于观察2 组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；观察1 组、观察2 组的术中出血量少于对照组，手术时间、术后下床活动时间、住院时间短于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。观察1 组术后48 h 的CRP 以及术后24、48 h 的VAS 评分低于观察2 组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；观察1 组、观察组2 组术后48 h 的IL-6、CRP 以及术后24、48 h 的VAS 评分均低于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；观察1 组和观察2 组的术后并发症总发生率、复发率比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。观察1 组的术后并发症总发生率、复发率低于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.017）。观察2 组的术后并发症总发生率、复发率低于对照组，但经校正，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.017）。结论在治疗腹股沟疝时，运用TEP、TAPP 术能够降低复发率，减轻炎症反应。相较于TAPP 术，TEP术的安全性更显著。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章

关键词 ：腹腔镜, 腹膜外疝修补术, 无张力疝修补术, 腹股沟疝, 复发, 炎症因子

Abstract：Objective To explore the effect of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair (TEP), laparoscopic preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) and open tension-free hernia repair for inguinal hernia, to analyze the effect of different surgical methods on recurrence, C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels in peripheral blood of patients. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 159 cases of inguinal hernia patients admitted to the Second Department of General Surgery, Beijing Renhe Hospital from February 2019 to June 2020, and they were divided into three groups according to surgical methods. Fifty-three patients in the observation group 1 received TEP, 53 patients in the observation group 2 received TAPP, and 53 patients in the control group received open tension-free hernia repair. The amount of intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative activity time out of bed and hospitalization time of the three groups were compared. Serum indexes and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of three groups were compared. The total incidence and recurrence rate of complications were compared among the three groups. Results There were no significant differences in operation time, postoperative activity time and IL-6 between the observation group 1 and the observation group 2 (P＞0.05). The amount of intraoperative blood loss in observation group 1 was less than that in observation group 2, and the length of hospital stay was shorter than that in observation group 2, with statistical significances (P＜0.05). The amount of intraoperative blood loss in observation group 1 and observation group 2 was less than that in control group, and the duration of operation, postoperative activity time out of bed and hospital stay were shorter than those in control group, with statistical significances (P＜0.05). The CRP and VAS score at 48 h after operation in the observation group 1 were lower than those in the observation group 2, the differences were statistically significant (P＜0.05). IL-6 and CRP at 48 h after operation and VAS scores at 24 and 48 h after surgery in observation group 1 and observation group 2 were lower than those in control group, the differences were statistically significant (P＜0.05). The total incidence and recurrence rate of postoperative complications in observation group 1 were lower than those in control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.017). The total incidence and recurrence rate of postoperative complications in the observation group 2 were lower than those in the control group, but after adjustment, the differences were not statistically significant (P＞0.017). Conclusion In the treatment of inguinal hernia, the use of TEP and TAPP can reduce the recurrence rate and reduce the inflammation. Compared with TAPP,the safety of TEP is more significant.

Key words： Laparoscope Extraperitoneal hernia repair Tension-free hernia repair Inguinal hernia Recurrence Inflammatory cytokines

收稿日期: 2021-02-19

引用本文:

涂春明；董庆申；柳建垒. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术、腹腔镜经腹膜前疝修补术与开放式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的效果比较[J]. 中国当代医药, 2021, 28(19): 25-29.
TU Chun-ming DONG Qing-shen LIU Jian-lei. Effect comparison of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair, laparoscopic preperitoneal hernia repair and open tension-free hernia repair in the treatment of inguinal hernia. 中国当代医药, 2021, 28(19): 25-29.

链接本文:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/ 或 http://dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/Y2021/V28/I19/25

[6]	都敏，苗艺译，唐光华，等.TAPP 与TEP 治疗腹股沟疝的临床对比研究[J].中国继续医学教育，2020，12（14）：148-150.
[7]	张子通，莫伟锋，杨慧，等.腹腔镜TAPP 和TEP 治疗腹股沟嵌顿疝的临床应用研究[J].岭南现代临床外科，2020，20（2）：229-232.
[8]	梁正，李天伦，喻福华，等.腹腔镜疝修补TEP、TAPP、IPOM 术在腹股沟复发疝中的疗效分析[J].临床研究，2020，28（11）：94-95.
[1]	王志，孙敏，李义亮，等.两种腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术对男性腹股沟疝患者精索血管及睾丸功能影响的对比分析[J].中国医师杂志，2019，21（2）：91-94.
[2]	何苗，曾心雨，刘杰锋.腹腔镜腹膜前疝修补和全腹膜外疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的优劣比较[J].中国现代手术学杂志，2020，24（1）：77-81.
[3]	肖强，曾军，梁海飞，等.不同术式的疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝后的临床疗效观察[J].河北医学，2017，4（38）：79-83.
[4]	杨寅熙，吴一峰，吴铁.TEP 与TAPP 术治疗腹股沟疝临床疗效比较[J].中国现代手术学杂志，2018，22（4）：241-243.
[5]	唐健雄.成人腹股沟疝诊疗指南（2018年版）解读[J].临床外科杂志，2019，27（1）：14-17.
[9]	钱文龙，杨春辉，李云云，等.比较TAPP 和TEP 对成人腹股沟疝的临床治疗效果[J].中国继续医学教育，2019，11（34）：133-135.
[10]	刘嘉欣，李汝红，于海东，等.TAPP 与TEP 对腹股沟疝术后慢性疼痛的影响[J].中华腔镜外科杂志（电子版），2016，9（2）：121-123.
[11]	彭延春，赵司卫，刘祥尧.TAPP，TEP 及IPOM3 种疝修补术治疗腹股沟复发疝的临床对比研究[J].实用医学杂志，2019，35（6）：950-953.
[12]	杨仁保，张军，鲁俊，等.腹腔镜经腹膜前疝修补术与传统疝修补术的回顾性分析[J].腹部外科，2019，32（2）：58-61.
[13]	廖家龙，熊文婷，钟盛良，等.腹腔镜经腹膜前疝修补术对腹股沟疝的治疗作用[J].实用临床医药杂志，2019，23（13）：30-32.
[14]	张卫东，俞远林，彭俊璐，等.腹腔镜经腹腔腹膜前疝修补术治疗成人复发性腹股沟疝[J].中国微创外科杂志，2019，19（1）：53-56.
[15]	李瑞斌，吴攀，万智恒.经腹腹膜前腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术在腹股沟疝无张力修补中的应用[J].中国普通外科杂志，2020，29（10）：1275-1279.
[16]	茹东跃，陈德兴.腹膜前间隙解剖结构在腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术中的应用[J].中国微创外科杂志，2020，20（12）：61-63.
[17]	叶新，王小明，张应开，等.两种补片在腹腔镜经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术中的疗效比较[J].皖南医学院学报，2019，38（3）：47-50.
[18]	朱红，何钱章，康雅琴.腹腔镜下不同术式与开放手术疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效[J].中华疝和腹壁外科杂志，2020，14（1）：43-46.