[1]方胜利 潘炳权** 郁林海 汪韬 严仕梦.经脐入路和传统腹腔镜经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术的比较[J].中国微创外科杂志,2023,01(4):262-266.
　Fang Shengli,Pan Bingquan,Yu Linhai,et al.A Comparative Study Between Transumbilical Approach and Traditional Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2023,01(4):262-266.
点击复制

经脐入路和传统腹腔镜经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术的比较()
分享到：

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

卷:
01
期数:
2023年4期
页码:
262-266
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2023-04-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
A Comparative Study Between Transumbilical Approach and Traditional Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair
作者:
方胜利 潘炳权** 郁林海 汪韬 严仕梦
(上海市松江区方塔中医医院外一科，上海201699)
Author(s):
Fang Shengli;  Pan Bingquan;  Yu Linhai;  et al.
Department of General Surgery, Fangta Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai 201699, China
关键词:
腹股沟疝; 经脐入路手术; 经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术
Keywords:
Inguinal hernia; Transumbilical approach; Transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的比较经脐入路腹腔镜和传统腹腔镜经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术(transabdominal preperitoneal prosthesis，TAPP)的临床效果。方法对2020年1月~2021年6月我科64例腹股沟疝进行回顾性分析，由患者选择手术方式，行经脐TAPP和传统TAPP各32例。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后24 h切口疼痛评分、术后住院时间、住院费用、术后并发症发生率、切口满意度评分及复发情况。结果经脐组手术时间显著长于传统组［(94.3±10.7) min vs. (60.4±4.4) min，t=16.593，P=0.000］，但术后切口疼痛评分低［(1.3±0.5)分vs. (3.1±0.7)分，t=-12.647，P=0.000］，术后住院时间短［(1.7±0.7) d vs. (4.3±1.0) d，t=-12.149，P=0.000］，住院费用低［(16.0±0.6)千元vs. (18.5±0.7)千元，t=-15.594，P=0.000］，切口满意度评分高［(12.8±1.1)分vs. (8.6±1.5)分，t=12.635，P=0.000］。2组术中出血量、术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组术后随访14~32个月［分别为(23.6±5.3)月和(23.3±5.8)月］，来院复查，均无复发。结论经脐入路TAPP治疗腹股沟疝在术后切口疼痛、切口满意度、住院时间、住院费用等方面明显优于传统TAPP。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effects of transumbilical endoscopic surgery (TUES) and traditional laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TAPP).MethodsA retrospective analysis of 64 cases of inguinal hernia treated in our department from January 2020 to June 2021 was carried out. According to the patients’ choice, they were divided into transumbilical TAPP group (n=32) and traditional TAPP group (n=32). The operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative 24 h incision pain score, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization cost, postoperative complication rate, incision satisfaction score, and recurrence were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe operation time of patients in the transumbilical group was significantly longer than that in the traditional group, with a statistically significant difference between the two groups ［(94.3±10.7) min vs. (60.4±4.4) min, t=16.593, P=0.000］, but in the transumbilical group the score of incision pain was significantly lower ［(1.3±0.5) points vs. (3.1±0.7) points, t=-12.647, P=0.000］, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter ［(1.7±0.7) d vs. (4.3±1.0) d, t=-12.149, P=0.000］, the hospitalization cost was significantly lower ［(16.0±0.6)×103 yuan vs. (18.5±0.7)×103 yuan, t=-15.594, P=0.000］, and the score of incision satisfaction was significantly higher ［(12.8±1.1) points vs. (8.6±1.5) points, t=12.635, P=0.000］. There were no significant differences in the amount of intraoperative bleeding and the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05). The two groups were followed up for 14-32 months ［mean, (23.6±5.3) and (23.3±5.8) months, respectively］, and no recurrence was found. ConclusionLaparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair via umbilical approach (TUESTAPP) is superior to traditional laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TAPP) in terms of postoperative incision pain, incision satisfaction, hospital stay, and hospitalization cost.

参考文献/References:

[1]鞠雷,魏士博,尚海.腹腔镜经腹腔腹膜前疝修补术与Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝临床对照研究.临床军医杂志,2019,47(7):693-694.
[2]郁林海,汪韬,顾春飞,等.经脐入路腹腔镜胆囊切除术3000例报告.中国微创外科杂志,2015,15(5):394-397.
[3]中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组,中国医师协会外科医师分会疝和腹壁外科医师委员会.成人腹股沟疝诊断和治疗指南(2018年版).中华外科志,2018,56(7):495-498.
[4]Rehman SH,John BJ.Singleincision laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal mesh hernia repair:a feasible approach.Hernia,2010,14(3):329-331.
[5]杨诗语,于志远,柳博文,等.单孔与常规全腹膜外疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床效果比较meta分析.中国普外基础与临床杂志,2022,29(5):648-657.
[6]刘家惠,吴建国.单孔法腹腔镜疝修补术与三孔法腹腔镜疝修补术临床疗效观察.腹部外科,2022,35(1):54-57.
[7]贠亨,王玉林,章荣龙,等.单孔腹腔镜与传统腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术及术后质量评估.腹腔镜外科杂志,2021,26(5):367-370.
[8]忻颖,朱江帆,李潇娴.经脐入路腹腔镜腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术4例报告.腹腔镜外科杂志,2011,16(1):16-17.
[9]潘炳权,郁林海,朱海峰,等.经脐入路常规器械腹腔镜经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术.中国微创外科杂志,2020,20(2):178-180.
[10]李健文.腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术.中国实用外科杂志,2018,38(8):954-957.
[11]朱江帆.经脐入路内镜手术——微创医学研究的新热点.微创医学,2009,4(5):457-458.
[12]中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组.腹腔内补片修补术中国专家共识(2022版).中国实用外科杂志,2022,42(7):721-729.
[13]中华医学会外科学分会.疝外科缝合技术与缝合材料选择中国专家共识(2018版).中国实用外科杂志,2019,39(1):39-45.
[14]王松,于刚,赵旭,等.单孔法与三孔法腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的配对病例对照研究.腹腔镜外科杂志,2020,25(12):895-898.
[15]狐鸣,李军良,王婧,等.单孔腹腔镜技术在腹股沟疝修补术中临床应用价值的Meta分析.中国普通外科杂志,2016,25(10):1461-1469.
[16]蒋正顺,尤祥正.腹腔镜腹股沟疝无张力修补术后并发症的危险因素分析.腹腔镜外科杂志,2019,24(8):608-612.
[17]Seretis K,Goulis D,Demiri EC,et al.Prevention of seroma formation following abdominoplasty:a systematic review and metaanalysis.Aesthet Surg J,2017,37:316-323.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目：上海市松江区科学技术攻关项目(19SJKJGG143)**通讯作者，Email：839257358@qq.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2023-06-29