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/OL]. 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/OL]. 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] 马东扬, 李斌, 陆安清, 王光华, 雷文章, 宋应寒. Gilbert 与单层补片腹膜前疝修补术疗效的随机对照研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 629-633.
[2] 周正阳, 陈凯, 仇多良, 邵乐宁, 吴浩荣, 钟丰云. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后出血原因分析及处理[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 660-664.
[3] 顾熙, 徐子宇, 周澍, 张吴楼, 张业鹏, 林昊, 刘宗航, 嵇振岭, 郑立锋. 腹股沟疝腹膜前间隙无张力修补术后补片感染10 例报道[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 665-669.
[4] 宋俊锋, 张珍珍. 单侧初发性腹股沟斜疝老年患者经腹腹膜前疝修补术中残余疝囊腹直肌下缘固定效果评估[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 670-674.
[5] 高娟, 徐建庆, 闫芳, 丁盛华, 刘霞. Rutkow、TAPP、TEP 手术治疗单侧腹股沟疝患者的临床疗效及对血清炎症因子水平的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 675-680.
[6] 于新峰, 曾琦, 后强, 徐浩, 操谢芳. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术和腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术对成人腹股沟疝治疗效果及预后分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 681-686.
[7] 方辉强, 黄杰, 随冰琰. 腰方肌阻滞与腹横肌平面阻滞对腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术患者术后镇痛效果的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 697-702.
[8] 张晋伟, 董永红, 王家璇. 基于GBD2021 数据库对中国与全球老年人疝疾病负担和健康不平等的分析比较[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 708-716.
[9] 李康虎, 王继伟, 王光远. 腹腔镜下腹股沟疝修补术后并发症及防治进展[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 369-375.
[10] 张洁宇, 朱文君, 高伟, 王新昇, 贺贝贝, 吴世乐. 青海地区不同海拔男性腹股沟疝患者腹壁组织Ⅰ、Ⅲ型胶原纤维表达的研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 383-389.
[11] 周劲鸿, 王鉴杰, 谢肖俊. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术后尿潴留发生率及危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 390-395.
[12] 陈钊, 钟克力, 江志鹏, 傅宇翔, 范宝航, 吴文飞. 前列腺癌术后腹股沟疝的发生率及危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 396-401.
[13] 邓杨, 彭豪, 刘剑文. 腹腔镜疝修补术腹膜前负压引流的效果和长期安全性研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 402-405.
[14] 邱志东, 张杰, 薛鹏, 郑玲玲, 杨建桃, 赵海军, 陈双. 补片固定与否对腹股沟疝经腹腹膜前修补术后患者并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 406-409.
[15] 申亚伟, 黄新, 李万林. 改良医用胶粘合假疝囊技术预防腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术后血清肿的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 410-413.
阅读次数
全文


摘要