[1]刘晨,张能维,路夷平,等.开放与腹腔镜无张力疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的对比研究[J].中国微创外科杂志,2011,11(5):406-408.
　Liu Chen,Zhang Nengwei,Lu Yiping,et al.Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Techniques for Tensionfree Hernia Repair for Elderly Patients with Inguinal Hernia[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2011,11(5):406-408.
点击复制

开放与腹腔镜无张力疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的对比研究()
分享到：

《中国微创外科杂志》[ISSN:1009-6604/CN:11-4526/R]

卷:
11
期数:
2011年5期
页码:
406-408
栏目:
出版日期:
2011-05-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Techniques for Tensionfree Hernia Repair for Elderly Patients with Inguinal Hernia
作者:
刘晨; 张能维; 路夷平; 朱斌; 张展志; 杜德晓; 赵霞; 宫轲
北京世纪坛医院普外科，北京100038
Author(s):
Liu Chen;  Zhang Nengwei;  Lu Yiping;  et al.
Department of General Surgery, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Beijing 100038, China
关键词:
腹股沟疝; 无张力修补术; 腹腔镜; 老年患者
Keywords:
Inguinal hernia; Tensionfree repair; Laparoscopy; Elderly patient
分类号:
R656.2+1
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的比较开放和腹腔镜完全腹膜外无张力疝修补治疗老年腹股沟疝的疗效。方法2006年1月~2010年1月136例老年腹股沟疝行开腹无张力填充式腹股沟疝修补术（开放组，n=72）或腹腔镜完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术（totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty，TEP）（TEP组，n=64），比较2种术式疗效。结果开放组手术时间（65.3±18.1）min，明显短于TEP组（78.1±12.6）min (t=4.742，P=0.000)。开放组住院费用（4960.2±1033.3）元，明显低于TEP组（6998.0±1632.2）元(t=8.796，P=0.000)。开放组术后24 h和1周疼痛评分明显高于TEP组(Z=-7.144，P=0.000 ；Z=-6.408，P=0.000)；术后住院时间（4.9±2.4）d明显长于TEP组（3.6±1.5）d (t=-3.733，P=0.000)。136例无严重并发症。开放组72例随访8~46个月，平均15个月，其中>24个月11例；TEP组64例随访4~35个月，平均14个月，其中>24个月9例，2组均无术后复发。 结论2种术式治疗老年腹股沟疝是安全有效的。TEP疼痛轻，恢复快，应首选，尤其适用于双侧腹股沟疝修补；开放无张力疝修补术费用低，易开展，非常适用于合并有心肺疾病无法耐受全麻或CO2气腹的老年患者。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTto compare the efficacy of open surgery with laparoscopy for tensionfree hernia repair in elderly patients suffering from inguinal hernia. MethodsBetween January 2006 and January 2010, 136 elderly patients diagnosed with inguinal hernia underwent open tensionfree meshplug and patch (open group, n=72) or total extraperitoneal hernioplasty (TEP group, n=64). We collected and compared the clinical data between the two groups.ResultsCompared to TEP group, the open group showed significantly shorter operation time, lower hospital cost, higher pain score in 24 hours and 1 week, and longer hospital stay ［(65.0±18.1) min vs. (78.1±12.6) min, t=4.742, P=0.000; (4960.2±1033.3) RMB vs. (6998.0±1632.2) RMB, t=8796, P=0.000; Z=-7.144, P=0.000 and Z=-6.408, P=0.000; (4.9 ±2.4)d vs. (3.6±1.5) d, t=-3.733, P=0000］. No severe complications were found in the patients. The open group were followed up for 8 to 46 months with a mean of 15 months (>24 months in 11 cases); and the TEP group was followed up for 4 to 35 months with a mean of 14 months (>24 months in 9 cases). None of the patients had recurrence during the period. ConclusionsBoth open surgery and TEP are effective for elderly patients with inguinal hernia. TEP can be the first choice, especially for bilateral inguinal hernia, for it’s less pain and quicker recovery. Open surgery for tensionfree hernia repair is less expensive, and easier to perform, and thus is especially suitable for patients with cardiopulmonary diseases that cannot tolerate general anesthesia and CO2 pneumoperitoneum.

参考文献/References:

[1]中华医学会外科学会疝和腹壁外科学组. 成人腹股沟疝、股疝手术治疗方案（修订稿）.中华普通外科杂志，2004，19(2)：126.
[2]Rutkow IM, Robbins AW.“Tensionfree” inguinal herniorrhaphy: a preliminary report on the “mesh plug” technique. Surgery，1993，114（1）:3-8.
[3]Garg P, Menon GR, Rajagopal M, et al. Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair of recurrent inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc，2010, 24（2）:450-454.
[4]Gong K，Zhang NW, Lu YP, et al. Comparison of the open tensionfree meshplug, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc，2011，25（1）:234-239.
[5]Pavlids TE. Current opinion on laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc, 2010, 24（4）:974-976.
[6]Junge K, Rosch R, Klinge U, et al. Risk factors related to recurrence in inguinal hernia repair: a retrospective analysis. Hernia，2006，10(4)：309-315.
[7]段鑫，王勇，何涛，等. 局麻无张力疝修补术与腹腔镜完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术的临床对比分析. 中国普通外科杂志，2007，16（7）：678-680.
[8]Eklund AS, Montgomery AK, Rasmussen IC, et al. Low recurrence rate after laparoscopic (TEP) and open (Lichtenstein) inguinal hernia repair. Ann Surg，2009，249（1）:33-38.
[9]Schmedt CG, Sauerland S, Bittner R. Comparison of endoscopic procedures vs Lichtenstein and other open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc，2005，19（2）:188-199.
[10]Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov，2005, 12（1）:63-69.
[11]O’Dwyer PJ, Kingsnoth AN, Molloy RG, et al. Randomized clinical trail assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg，2005,92（2）:166-170.
[12]Fei L, Filippone G, Trapani V, et al. Feasibility of primary inguinal hernia repair with a new mesh. World J Surg，2006, 30(6): 1055-1062.
[13]Sanders DL, Samarakoon DH, Ganshirt SW, et al. A twocentre blinded randomized control study comparing the Lichtenstein patch, Perfix plug and ProLoop plug in the repair of primary inguinal hernia. Hernia，2009, 13(5):499-503.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
宫轲通讯作者，Email：gongke6688@yahoo.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2013-04-18