切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普通外科学文献(电子版) ›› 2017, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (02) : 93 -95. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2017.02.006

所属专题: 文献

论著

两种后入路腹膜前间隙修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的临床观察
马学强1, 朱雄文1,(), 聂寒秋1   
  1. 1. 318000 浙江省台州市立医院胃肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2017-02-17 出版日期:2017-04-01
  • 通信作者: 朱雄文
  • 基金资助:
    浙江省台州市医学重点支柱学科(培育)项目(台卫发2016-136-6)

Clinical comparison between TAPP and Kugel herniorrhaphy in adult inguinal hernia

Xueqiang Ma1, Xiongwen Zhu1,(), Hanqiu Nie1   

  1. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Taizhou Municipal Hospital, Taizhou 318000, China
  • Received:2017-02-17 Published:2017-04-01
  • Corresponding author: Xiongwen Zhu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhu Xiongwen, Email:
引用本文:

马学强, 朱雄文, 聂寒秋. 两种后入路腹膜前间隙修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的临床观察[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2017, 11(02): 93-95.

Xueqiang Ma, Xiongwen Zhu, Hanqiu Nie. Clinical comparison between TAPP and Kugel herniorrhaphy in adult inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2017, 11(02): 93-95.

目的

比较两种后入路腹膜前间隙修补术TAPP和Kugel术在成人腹股沟疝治疗中的手术效果。

方法

对2014年1月至2016年1月台州市立医院收治的194例成人单侧腹股沟疝患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,其中TAPP术96例,Kugel术98例。观察并比较两组手术时间、术后离床活动时间、术后住院时间、手术费用及术后并发症等方面的差异。

结果

TAPP组手术时间、术后离床时间、住院时间均较Kugel组短,差异有统计学意义(t=2.315、2.195、2.521,P=0.022、0.029、0.013),而住院费用比Kugel组费用高,差异有统计学意义(t=8.210,P=0.000)。比较两组的并发症如切口感染、异物感、慢性疼痛、血清肿的发生率差异无统计学意义,但TAPP组血清肿发生率在Ⅲ型腹股沟疝病例要高于Kugel组,差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.254,P=0.039)。随访期间TAPP组有2例Ⅲ型腹股沟疝复发,但与Kugel组比较差异无统计学意义。

结论

TAPP与Kugel疝修补术都是腹股沟疝修补安全有效的手术方式,但对于腹股沟Ⅲ型疝,临床中应根据患者腹股沟疝具体分型及术者经验进行个体化术式选择。

Objective

To compare the clinical effect of transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and Kugel herniorrhaphy in treating adult inguinal hernia.

Methods

The data of adult inguinal hernia patients admitted to Taizhou Municipal Hospital from January 2014 to January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. One hundred and ninety-four cases of primary unilateral inguinal hernia were treated with TAPP operation (96 cases) or Kugel operation (98 cases). The differences in clinical efficacy, postoperative complications and cost were compared between the two groups.

Results

TAPP operation was superior to Kugel operation in operative time, mean activity time and mean hospitalization time (t=2.315, 2.195, 2.521, P=0.022, 0.029, 0.013). TAPP group had a higher total hospital costs than Kugel group, and the consequence showed statistically significance between the two groups (t=8.210, P=0.000). There were no significant differences in the complications such as incision infection, foreign body sensation, chronic pain and seroma. But seroma in Type Ⅲof TAPP group was higher than in Kugel group ( χ2=4.254, P=0.039). Two postoperative recurrent cases of TypeⅢ occured in TAPP group, but there was no significant difference.

Conclusions

Both TAPP and Kugel herniorrhaphies are recommended approaches to repair the myopectineal orifice with their safety, effectiveness and convenience. The individual choice depends on the type of hemia and economic factor of patients.

表1 两组腹股沟疝患者疝修补术的手术情况(±st检验)
表2 两组疝修补术的手术并发症(例)
[1]
Nyhus LM,Klein MS,Pogers FB. Inguinal hemia[J]. Curr Probl Surg, 1991, 28(6): 403.
[2]
李健文. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的技术要点[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2010, 15(8): 567-571.
[3]
朱雄文,马学强,吴崇山. Kugel疝修补术的技术改进与临床意义[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2014, 8(3): 273-275.
[4]
Dasari B,Grant L,Irwin T. Immediate and long-term outcomes of Lichtenstein and Kugel patch operations for inguinal hernia repair[J]. Ulster Med J, 2009, 78(2): 115-118.
[5]
Jacob DA,Hackl JA,Bittner R, et al. Perioperative outcome of unilateral versus bilateral inguinal hernia repairs in TAPP technique: analysis of 15, 176 cases from the Herniamed Registry[J]. Surg Endosc, 2015, 29(12): 3733-3740.
[6]
Yang XF,Liu JL. Laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia in adults[J]. Ann Transl Med, 2016, 4(20): 402.
[7]
Poelman MM,vall den Heuvd B,Deelder JD, et al. EAES Consensus Development Conference on endoscopic repair of groin hernias[J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(10): 3505-3519.
[8]
乐飞,李健文,王文瑞, 等. 单中心腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术4445例[J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2016, 31(9): 724-727.
[9]
Mayer F,Niebuhr H,Lechner M, et al. When is mesh fixation in TAPP-repair of primary inguinal hernia repair necessary? The register-based analysis of 11,230 cases[J]. Surg Endosc, 2016, 30(10): 4363-4371.
[1] 孟飞龙, 华帅, 张莹, 路广海. 经脐单孔腹腔镜后鞘后入路在全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术中的应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 658-660.
[2] 李涛, 陈纲, 李世拥. 腹腔镜下右侧腹股沟斜疝修补术(TAPP)[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 598-598.
[3] 王可, 范彬, 李多富, 刘奎. 两种疝囊残端处理方法在经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术中的疗效比较[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 692-696.
[4] 袁伟, 张修稳, 潘宏波, 章军, 王虎, 黄敏. 平片式与填充式腹股沟疝修补术的疗效比较[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 697-701.
[5] 夏松, 姚嗣会, 汪勇刚. 经腹腹膜前与疝环充填式疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的对照研究[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 702-705.
[6] 刘跃刚, 薛振峰. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝日间手术在老年患者中的安全性分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 711-714.
[7] 杨瑞洲, 李国栋, 吴向阳. 腹股沟疝术后感染的治疗方法探讨[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 715-719.
[8] 徐金林, 陈征. 抗菌药物临床应用监测对腹股沟疝修补术预防用药及感染的影响[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 720-723.
[9] 于智慧, 赵建军. 后路腰方肌阻滞复合全身麻醉在腹股沟斜疝经腹腹膜前手术中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 734-739.
[10] 田静, 方秀春. 超声引导下横筋膜平面阻滞在儿童腹股沟疝手术的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 740-744.
[11] 李静如, 王江玲, 吴向阳. 简易负压引流在腹股沟疝术后浅部感染中的疗效分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 745-749.
[12] 王红艳, 马艳丽, 郑洁灿. 手术室综合护理在腹股沟疝手术中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 755-758.
[13] 代格格, 杨丽, 胡媛媛, 周文婷. 手术室综合干预在老年腹股沟疝患者中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 759-763.
[14] 王敏, 蒋家斌, 李茂新. 预警宣教联合个性化疼痛管理对腹股沟疝手术患者的影响[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 764-767.
[15] 王蕾, 王少华, 牛海珍, 尹腾飞. 儿童腹股沟疝围手术期风险预警干预[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 768-772.
阅读次数
全文


摘要