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) ›› 2025, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (02) : 101 -105. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2025.02.005

论著

层面分离法与镜推分离法在腹腔镜全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术中的倾向性评分匹配对比研究
周上军1, 邓锐斌1, 占平1, 黄海2, 邓艳庆2, 张培杰2, 张焕彬2, 周学鲁2,()   
  1. 1. 523002 东莞,广州中医药大学东莞医院外科
    2. 523378 东莞,广东医科大学茶山医院外科
  • 收稿日期:2024-06-22 出版日期:2025-04-01
  • 通信作者: 周学鲁

A propensity score matched comparison of plane dissection and telescopic dissection for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair

Shangjun Zhou1, Ruibin Deng1, Ping Zhan1, Hai Huang2, Yanqing Deng2, Peijie Zhang2, Huanbin Zhang2, Xuelu Zhou2,()   

  1. 1. Department of Surgery, Dongguan Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Dongguan 523002, China
    2. Department of Surgery, Chashan Hospital Affiliated to Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan 523378, China
  • Received:2024-06-22 Published:2025-04-01
  • Corresponding author: Xuelu Zhou
引用本文:

周上军, 邓锐斌, 占平, 黄海, 邓艳庆, 张培杰, 张焕彬, 周学鲁. 层面分离法与镜推分离法在腹腔镜全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术中的倾向性评分匹配对比研究[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 101-105.

Shangjun Zhou, Ruibin Deng, Ping Zhan, Hai Huang, Yanqing Deng, Peijie Zhang, Huanbin Zhang, Xuelu Zhou. A propensity score matched comparison of plane dissection and telescopic dissection for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair[J/OL]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(02): 101-105.

目的

评估层面分离法(PD)与镜推分离法(TD)在腹腔镜全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术(TEP)中的安全性与有效性,特别关注手术视野的质量。

方法

回顾性分析2017年1月至2023年10月在广州中医药大学东莞医院和广东医科大学茶山医院接受PD的TEP患者146例(PD组),通过倾向性评分匹配尽量减少混淆因素的影响,在同期手术患者中,按12最优配对匹配TD组292例。主要观察指标包括腹膜损伤、血管损伤、手术视野清晰度、手术时间、术中出血量、术后总并发症和严重并发症发生率,次要观察指标包括住院时间、术后疼痛和复发率等。

结果

倾向性评分匹配后,两组在关键预后因素上均衡,具有可比性。PD组手术视野清晰度Ⅰ级和Ⅳ级优于TD组(χ2=5.310、4.074;P=0.021、0.044),术中出血量少于TD组(t=2.875,P=0.004),且手术时间较短(t=4.484,P<0.001)。TD组住院费用高于PD组(t=6.869,P<0.001)。两组在住院时间和随访时间上差异无统计学意义。在总并发症发生率上有显著差异(χ2=6.778,P=0.009),主要是腹膜损伤(χ2=6.665,P=0.010)。虽然TD组中1例出血超过500 ml,1例主动脉损伤,但两组在严重并发症方面差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.501,P=0.479)。此外,两组患者均未发生切口感染和慢性疼痛并发症。

结论

PD与TD在TEP中均展现出有效性与可靠性。PD在手术视野清晰度、减少腹膜损伤方面表现更优,并能缩短手术时间,减少术中出血量和费用支出,在TEP中具备较大的应用潜力。

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of plane dissection (PD) versus telescopic dissection (TD) in totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic hernioplasty, with special focus on the quality of surgical field vision.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 146 patients who underwent PD from January 2017 to October 2023 in Dongguan Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine and Chashan Hospital Affiliated to Guangdong Medical University. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize the impact of confounding factors. Among the patients who received operation at the same period,292 cases were matched with TD group in the optimal proportion of 12. The primary outcomes included peritoneal damage, vascular injury, clarity of surgical field vision, operation time, intraoperative blood loss,and complications. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, recurrence rate,and so on.

Results

After PSM, the two groups were comparable in terms of key prognostic factors. The PD group had significantly better clarity of surgical field vision compared to the TD group (grade : χ2=5.310,P=0.021; grade: 4.074, P=0.044), less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter operation time (t=2.875, 4.484;P=0.004, <0.001). The TD group had higher costs than the PD group (t=6.869, P<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay and followup duration. The overall complication rate was significantly different between the two groups (χ2=6.778,P=0.009), mainly due to differences in peritoneal injuries (χ2=6.665, P=0.010). Although one case in the TD group had bleeding exceeding 500 ml and one case of aortic injury, there were no statistical differences in severe complications classified by the Clavien-Dindo system between the two groups (χ2=0.501, P=0.479).Additionally, there were no incisional infections or chronic pain in either group.

Conclusions

Both PD and TD demonstrate effectiveness and reliability in TEP surgery. PD shows superior performance in terms of clarity of surgical field vision, reducing peritoneal injuries, shortening operation time, and reducing intraoperative blood loss and expenses. Therefore, PD has significant potential for application in TEP surgery.

表1 两组行腹腔镜全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补手术患者临床资料和基线特征
图1 PD组与TD 组腹膜前间隙分离对比 A层面分离法:腹直肌后间隙位于腹直肌和腹直肌后鞘之间,沿后鞘精细分离至弓状线。腹壁下血管明显可见;B镜推分离法:沿腹直肌后间隙前后左右推送分离,可见多个“蜂窝状”分离孔洞,有的戳穿腹直后鞘进入腹膜前间隙,有的仍然留在腹直肌后间隙内,小血管挤裂后滴血
图2 血迹半定量分级系统 A为Ⅰ级:<1/4的组织在手术视野上有血染色;B为Ⅱ级:<1/2的组织染色;C为Ⅲ级:<3/4的组织染色;D为Ⅳ级:>3/4的组织染色
表2 两组行腹腔镜全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术患者术中和术后资料比较
表3 两组患者术后并发症发生率比较[例(%)]
表4 两组患者术后并发症Clavien-Dindo分级比较[例(%)]
[1]
Akin E, Bas E, Firat N, et al. Comparison of balloon trocar versus telescopic dissection method for TEP inguinal hernia repair[J]. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 2021, 30(6): 623-626.
[2]
Kang YK, Lee SR, Son BH, et al. Achieving the preperitoneal space in totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: dissection with or without a balloon dissector[J]. J Mini Inva Surg, 2014,17(4): 62-67.
[3]
黄海, 邓艳庆, 张培杰, 等. 手术解剖层面转换在腹腔镜完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术中的应用体会: 附视频[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(3): 216-219.
[4]
Yamane T, Ishit T, Ishii M. A case of bladder injury caused during extraperitoneal preperitoneal repair of an inguinal hernia using a preperitoneal dissection balloon[J]. J Jap Coll Surg, 2017, 41(6):1012-1016.
[5]
唐健雄, 郑民华, 陈杰, 等. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝手术操作指南(2017版) [J/OL].中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2017,11(11): 1238-1242.
[6]
Zhou XL, Huang H, Deng YQ. Long-term follow-up of retromuscular approach totally extraperitoneal (rTEP) inguinal hernia repair[J]. Asian J Surg, 2023, 46(11): 4986-4987.
[7]
Nyhus LM, Klein MS, Roger FB. Inguinal hernia[J]. Curr Probl Surg, 1991, 28(6): 401-450.
[8]
Ansari MM. Arcuate line variations: are they important for TEP surgeons?[J]. Kuwait Med J, 2015, 47(4): 313-316.
[9]
周学鲁, 王友华, 黄海, 等. 弓状线变异在腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术中的临床意义[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(1): 39-43.
[10]
王友华, 黄海, 骆剑华, 等. 弓状线在腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术中的临床解剖学观察及其临床意义[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2019, 39(1): 16-21.
[11]
周上军, 张继峰, 曾子龙, 等. 经弓状线入路的单孔腹腔镜全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术探讨[J]. 医学理论与实践, 2022,35(15): 2598-2600.
[12]
周学鲁, 黄海, 骆剑华, 等. 基于膜解剖的腹腔镜全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2019,13(4): 296-299.
[1] 沈锋, 王葵, 刘建伟. 我国腹腔镜肝癌手术治疗现状、问题与发展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 237-240.
[2] 蔡建强, 毕新宇, 徐博文. 我国腹腔镜肝癌手术的难点与对策[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 241-244.
[3] 卢超, 陈波, 邢志祥, 周鹏, 王帅. 不同入路下腹腔镜解剖性肝脏切除术治疗肝细胞癌的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 254-257.
[4] 盛海涛, 窦明睿, 王俊杰, 修小龙, 杨建茂, 董长城. 基于CT三维可视化技术的个体化肝分段在解剖性肝切除术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 258-261.
[5] 汪志翔, 何战洋. 不同淋巴结清扫术在No.16淋巴结局限性转移的局部进展期胃癌中的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 266-269.
[6] 申昌军, 刘文奇. 不同食管空肠重建方法在胃癌患者TLTG术食管空肠吻合术中的应用对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 270-273.
[7] 张小松, 马俊永, 李锡锋, 施乐华, 沈锋. 腹腔镜鞘内解剖性右半肝切除联合区域淋巴结清扫[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 245-245.
[8] 母德安, 张志远, 张伟. 提线木偶单孔腹腔镜下胆囊切除[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 246-246.
[9] 马海龙, 吴少锋, 王茂, 陈学锋, 代引海. 腹腔镜近端胃切除不同消化道重建围手术期安全性及抗反流效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 274-277.
[10] 陈俊宇, 钟广正, 何旺. 机器人辅助腹腔镜保留功能漏斗的根治性膀胱切除原位新膀胱术[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 396-396.
[11] 赵孝, 刘博皓, 蔡潜, 罗云. 腹腔镜下腔静脉后输尿管矫形术[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 397-397.
[12] 蔡星建, 门群利, 罗晓辉, 李涛, 黄晓东, 王波, 杨启, 巨育泉, 刘建舟. 达芬奇机器人辅助腹腔镜左侧巨大囊性肿瘤肾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 398-398.
[13] 张海雄, 吴显博, 罗发. 腹腔镜荧光正染S7段肝切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 508-508.
[14] . 腹腔镜左半肝切除+胆囊切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 509-509.
[15] 曾勇超, 唐荣, 李启进, 张震生. 腹腔镜保留十二指肠胰头次全切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 510-510.
阅读次数
全文


摘要