单点固定与不固定补片的完全腹膜外腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术疗效比较

目的:比较单点固定与不固定软质补片的完全腹膜外腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术(TEP)治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2013年1月—2015年3月在绵阳市中心医院普外科确诊并行TEP手术的90例单侧腹股沟疝患者,均采用软质补片,其中55例行免气囊、免固定的TEP(免固定组),35例行免气囊、单点固定法TEP(单点固定组),比较两组术后使用镇痛药物比率、胃肠功能恢复时间、术后卧床时间、住院时间、术后并发症发生率等。结果:与免固定组相比,单点固定组手术时间较短,卧床时间较少、术后排气时间、进食时间较早,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);术中出血量、术后镇痛药应用比率、住院时间、术后血清肿发生率差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组术后均无复发。结论:与免固定TEP相比,单点固定软质补片的TEP治疗腹股沟疝可以显著缩短手术时间,降低手术难度,患者术后恢复较快。     

单孔与三孔腹腔镜全腹膜外单侧腹股沟疝修补术的对比研究

目的:对比分析单孔腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术(SIL-TEP)与传统三孔完全腹膜外疝修补术(TEP)治疗单侧腹股沟疝的临床效果。方法:回顾分析2021年2月至2023年3月收治的30例单侧腹股沟疝患者的临床资料,按手术方式分为SIL-TEP组与三孔TEP组,每组15例,比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术中呼气末二氧化碳分压峰值、术后皮下气肿发生率、术后24 h疼痛视觉模拟评分、术后住院时间、切口满意度、术后并发症发生率及复发率等指标。结果:SIL-TEP组手术时间长于三孔TEP组[(105.1±37.7)min vs.(53.3±9.0)min,P<0.01],术中呼气末二氧化碳分压峰值[(45.3±3.4)mmHg vs.(48.1±3.3)mmHg,P<0.05]、术后皮下气肿发生率[6.7%vs. 46.7%,P<0.05]、术后24 h疼痛评分[(2.7±0.9)分vs.(3.5±1.0)分,P<0.05]均低于三孔TEP组,切口满意度评分高于三孔TEP组[(9.8±0.4)分vs.(7.7±0.6)分,P<0.01]。两组术中出血量、术后住院时间、术...     

全腹膜外腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术中单点固定法与免气囊免固定法的对比分析

目的分析单点固定和免气囊免固定法全腹膜外腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术(TEP)的安全性及有效性。方法确诊并行TEP的腹股沟疝病人164例,分为两组,A组68例,免气囊单点固定补片,B组96例,免气囊免固定补片。比较两组手术情况、术后并发症及复发情况。术后3个月采用健康调查简表(SF-36)评价病人的生活质量。结果 A组手术时间为(68. 95±12. 71)分钟,较B组的(83. 04±15. 82)分钟明显缩短(P 0. 05)。A组与B组术中出血量[(8. 96±2. 45)ml和(8. 25±2. 23) ml]、术后肛门排气时间[(15. 68±4. 61)小时和(14. 45±4. 25)小时]、下床活动时间[(21. 12±4. 25)小时和(22. 45±4. 61)小时]、住院时间[(3. 72±1. 13)天和(3. 96±1. 33)天]、术后并发症发生率(11. 76%和21. 88%)比较,差异均无统计学意义(P 0. 05); A组与B组术后复发率分别为1. 47%和6. 25%,差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05);两组术后SF-36评分均较术前明显提高(P 0. 05),但组间比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论 TEP术中补片单点固定安全可行,相比于免固定法可降低手术难度,缩短手术时间。     

腹腔镜全腹膜外疝修补术治疗男性双侧腹股沟斜疝的临床研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜全腹膜外疝修补术(totally extraperitoneal,TEP)治疗男性双侧腹股沟斜疝的临床疗效。方法:回顾分析2010年1月至2012年6月收治的162例双侧腹股沟斜疝男性患者的临床资料,分别行TEP(腔镜组)与Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术(开放组)。对比两组患者手术时间、住院时间、恢复正常活动时间、术后并发症等。结果:与开放组相比,腔镜组患者年龄、BMI、术前ASA分级、疝分型及随访时间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但手术时间较长[(54.0±6.4)min vs.(45.0±4.2)min,P<0.001],术后恢复正常活动时间显著缩短[(10.0±1.6)d vs.(12.2±2.0)d,P=0.001],并发症发生率显著降低(7.1%vs.18.9%,P=0.046),术后住院时间两组差异无统计学意义[(4.4±1.3)d vs.(4.9±1.5)d,P=0.311]。结论:与开放手术相比,TEP治疗男性双侧腹股沟斜疝具有术后康复快、并发症发生率低的优点,值得推广。     

成人腹股沟疝日间手术护理体会

目的探讨成人腹股沟疝日间手术的护理措施。方法选取2013年3月至2015年3月湖北省恩施土家族苗族自治州民族医院收治的112例单侧腹股沟疝患者,按照随机数字表法将患者随机分为对照组(住院手术组)55例和观察组(日间手术组)57例。住院手术组予以常规的住院护理模式护理,日间手术组予以日间病房护理模式护理,比较2组患者的术中出血量、手术时间、并发症发生率、术后下床活动时间、住院时间、住院费用等。结果两组患者的术中出血量[(28±9)ml vs(27±9)ml]、手术时间[(30±10)min vs(32±10)min]、并发症发生率(12.73%vs 14.04%)比较差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05);日间手术组患者的术后下床活动时间[1.02±0.09)h vs(1.69±0.13)h]明显短于住院手术组;住院时间[(1.00±0.00)d vs(6.66±0.24)d]明显短于住院手术组;住院费用[(6 645±18)元vs(8 667±96)元]明显低于住院手术组(均P0.05)。结论在行无张力修补术的腹股沟疝患者中施行日间病房护理模式,能有效降低患者的住院费用,缩短患者的住院时间,是一种安全、快捷、方便的护理模式。     

加速康复外科策略对腹腔镜结直肠癌手术患者术后恢复的影响

目的探讨围术期实施加速康复外科(enhanced recovery after surgery,ERAS)策略对腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术患者术后恢复的影响。方法选择2015年3月至2016年6月择期行腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术患者84例,男55例,女29例,年龄36~78岁,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机分为两组,每组42例。E组采用硬膜外阻滞联合全麻,加强术前宣教,术中保温,限制性补液,术中、术后完善镇痛等一系列ERAS策略进行围术期管理,C组采用常规围术期处理。记录补液量、术毕鼻咽温度、术后首次肠鸣音时间、首次排气时间、首次进流体食物时间、首次下床活动时间及导尿管拔出时间;记录术后PACU停留时间、总住院时间及总住院费用等。结果 E组补液量[(1 328±64)ml vs.(2 463±135)ml]明显少于C组(P0.05),术毕鼻咽温度[(36.2±0.2)℃vs.(35.1±0.5)℃]明显高于C组(P0.05),术后首次肠鸣音时间[(33.4±12.5)h vs.(42.8±14.3)h]、首次排气时间[(43.6±13.9)h vs.(60.7±15.4)h]、首次进流体食物时间[(26.8±4.1)h vs.(67.4±13.5)h]、首次下床活动时间[(7.4±1.6)h vs.(26.5±3.8)h]、导尿管拔出时间[(29.2±6.1)h vs.(51.8±7.6)h]、术后PACU停留时间[(26.4±8.5)min vs.(37.2±11.6)min]和总住院时间[(7.5±0.9)d vs.(9.7±1.2)d]明显短于C组(P0.05),总住院费用[(2.1±0.6)万元vs.(2.6±0.8)万元]明显少于C组(P0.05),术后恶心呕吐(2.4%vs.21.4%)、躁动(4.8%vs.26.2%)、皮肤瘙痒(7.1%vs.23.8%)及寒战(0%vs.19.0%)的发生率明显低于C组(P0.05)。结论加速康复外科策略应用于腹腔镜结直肠癌患者围术期管理,可减少术中舒芬太尼用量,防止术后低体温的发生,胃肠功能恢复更快,明显缩短住院时间和降低医疗费用。     

老年复发性腹股沟疝无张力修补术40例

目的:探讨疝环充填式无张力疝修补术治疗老年复发性腹股沟疝的临床价值及安全性。方法:选择老年复发性腹股沟疝患者80例,采用前瞻性研究的方法随机分为观察组与对照组各40例。对照组采取传统疝修补术治疗,观察组采用疝环充填式无张力疝修补术治疗,比较两组手术效果、术后并发症及复发率。结果:观察组术中出血量明显少于对照组[(20.1±3.1) mL vs (34.6±5.1)mL,t=15.232, P0.05],下床活动时间[(4.3±0.8)h vs (9.3±1.3)h]、平均住院天数[(5.5±0.8)d vs (7.6±1.2)d]均明显短于对照组(P 0.05);术后并发症发生率低于对照组(10.0%vs 32.5%, t=6.050, P 0.05)。结论:无张力疝修补术有助于减少术中出血量,缓解疼痛程度,促进术后康复,降低术后并发症及复发风险。     

全腹膜外腹腔镜疝修补术与开放手术治疗女性腹股沟疝的比较

目的 探讨全腹膜外腹腔镜疝修补术(totally extraperitoneal repair, TEP)治疗女性腹股沟疝的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析我院2016年1月～2022年5月105例女性腹膜前疝修补术的临床资料，其中63例行TEP(腔镜组),42例行经腹股沟前入路腹膜前疝修补术(开放组),比较2组手术指标和随访结果。结果 2组均顺利完成手术，腔镜组6例术中探查发现对侧隐匿疝，同期修补。双侧疝腔镜组手术时间较开放组短[(102.7±14.6)min (n=30) vs.(113.4±12.8)min(n=13),t=-2.285,P=0.028],单侧疝手术时间2组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。腔镜组术后24 h疼痛视觉模拟评分(Visual Analogue Scale, VAS)、术后住院时间、异物感发生率优于开放组[(2.2±0.4)分vs.(2.6±0.7)分，t=-3.481,P=0.001;(7.1±2.4)d vs.(10.7±3.5)d,t=-5.841,P=0.000;7.9%(5/63) vs. 23.8%(10/42),χ²...     

加速康复外科在老年患者腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术中的应用探讨

目的:探讨加速康复外科在老年患者腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术中的安全性、可行性及临床价值。方法:回顾分析2015年1月至2017年6月108例老年腹股沟疝患者行腹腔镜疝修补术的临床资料,患者分为两组,A组围术期采用加速康复外科,B组采用常规治疗,分析两组术后疼痛评分、术后尿潴留发生率、住院时间、住院费用、血清肿及术后慢性疼痛。结果:A组术后第1天疼痛数字评分[(2.38±0.86) vs.(3.47±1.09),t=5.797,P=0.000]、术后尿潴留发生率[1.8%(1/55) vs. 15.1%(8/53),χ~2=4.611,P=0.032]、住院时间[(3.48±0.69)d vs.(5.89±0.74)d,t=17.395,P=0.000]、总住院费用[(8 935±290)元vs.(10 021±706)元,t=10.523,P=0.000]优于B组;两组术后血清肿、术后慢性疼痛发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:遵循加速康复外科理念为老年腹股沟疝患者行腹腔镜疝修补术安全、可行,可降低术后尿潴留发生率,缩短住院时间,降低住院费用,促进患者快速康复。     

完全腹膜外疝修补术与Lichtenstein修补术对比研究

目的对比完全腹膜外疝修补术(TEP)与李金斯坦(Lichtenstein)疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2012年6月至2014年6月,厦门市第五医院181例成人原发单侧腹股沟疝患者行TEP与Lichtenstein疝修补术术式的临床资料,对比观察二组患者平均住院时间、住院费用、术后并发症及复发率。结果 TEP组Lichtenstein组住院时间分别为(7.5±2.2)、(9.3±3.4)d,差异有统计学意义(t=4.084,P=0.000)。TEP组与Lichtenstein组住院费用分别为(8 601±1 726)、(6 922±2 014)元,差异有统计学意义(t=5.872,P=0.000)。TEP组与Lichtenstein组术后近、远期并发症发生率分别为(3.94%vs 3.81%,χ2=0.002,P=0.962)、(0%vs 0.95%,χ2=0.728,P=0.394),二组术后均无复发。结论 TEP与Lichtenstein术式均可较安全有效的应用于原发腹股沟疝的治疗,但同样条件下优先选择TEP术式。     

腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术与改良Kugel疝修补术的临床对比分析

目的：比较腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术（TEP）和改良Kugel疝修补术（Modify-Ku-gel）治疗腹股沟疝的安全性与有效性。方法回顾性分析我院2009年6月至2011年6月行腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术284例（312例次）患者的临床资料,其中TEP134例（152例次）,改良Kugel疝修补术150例（160例次）。比较两组平均手术时间、术后平均住院时间、术后并发症及术后复发。结果平均手术时间TEP组（48．75±12．14）min,改良Kugel组（51．46±24．76）min,两组间差异无统计学意义（P＝0．248）。术后平均住院时间 TEP 组为（5．23±1．85）d,改良 Kugel 组为（5．84±1．52）d,两者差异无统计学意义（P＝0．126）。术后并发症TEP组5例（3．3％）,改良Kugel组8例（5．0％）,两者差异无统计学意义（P＝0．598）,TEP组复发1例（0．7％）,改良Kugel组复发2例（1．3％）,两者差异无统计学意义（P＝1．00）。结论 TEP与改良Kugel术均为腹膜前疝修补手术,能完全修补腹股沟区耻骨肌孔的缺损,并且安全,有效,值得在临床推广。     

腹腔镜全腹膜外与经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术的临床对比研究

目的比较腹腔镜全腹膜外（TEP）与经腹腹膜前（TAPP）腹股沟疝修补术的可行性、安全性及有效性。方法回顾性分析2010年3月至2013年10月期间于笔者所在医院行腹腔镜TEP疝修补术（TEP组）和腹腔镜TAPP疝修补术（TAPP组）的95例腹股沟疝患者的临床资料和手术资料,比较TEP组和TAPP组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间、手术费用、术后并发症发生情况等。结果所有患者的手术均获成功,无中转开放手术病例。TEP组与TAPP组患者的手术时间[（65±16）min比（68±17）mini、术中出血量[（7．0±1．2）mL比（8．0±1．4）mL3、术后疼痛分数[（2．0±1．1）分比（1．8±1．1）分]、术后住院时间（（3．1±1．4）d比（3．3±1．2）d]及恢复正常活动时间[（4．2±1．0）d比（4．5±1．2）d]比较差异均无统计学意义∽〉0．05）;TEP组和TAPP组的手术费用分别为（8033＋536）元和（9632＋643）元,TAPP组较高（P=O．007）。术后发生并发症6例（6．3％,6／95）,2组各3例,包括阴囊血（清）肿3例、暂时性感觉神经障碍1例,尿潴留2例,2组并发症发生率比较差异也无统计学意义（P=1．000）。所有患者均获访,随访时间为1～35个月、（20．0±10．2）个月,无复发及慢性疼痛发生。结论TEP与TAPP疝修补术均是可行、安全及有效的术式,各有其优缺点,两者在手术并发症方面无明显差别。     

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术与完全腹膜外疝修补术疗效对比的Meta分析

目的:对比腹腔镜经腹腹膜前(transabdominal preperitoneal,TAPP)与完全腹膜外(totally extraperitoneal,TEP)腹股沟疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝患者的临床疗效。方法:计算机检索2000~2012年PubMed、EMbase、scifinder scholar、ovid fulltext数据库。检索语种为英语。纳入的随机或半随机对照试验为TAPP与TEP在成人患者中的临床效果比较,由两名工作人员分别提取数据,并对纳入的研究进行质量评估。最后采用RevMan 5.0软件进行统计分析并得出结论。结果:最终纳入7个试验,共包含1 999例患者。两种术式在手术时间[OR=0.90,95%CI(-5.31,7.11),P=0.78]、术后住院时间[OR=-0.08,95%CI(-1.22,1.07),P=0.90]、术后疼痛[OR=0.21,95%CI(-0.31,0.74),P=0.42]、远期复发率[OR=1.23,95%CI(0.53,2.87),P=0.63]、术后并发症发生率[OR=1.82,95%CI(0.83,4.01),P=0.14]方面差异均无统计学意义;但术后恢复工作时间[OR=3.83,95%CI(3.05,4.61),P<0.00001]差异有统计学意义。结论:TAPP与TEP均是治疗腹股沟疝安全、有效的术式,在术后恢复正常工作时间方面TEP优于TAPP,其他方面的区别尚需进一步研究。     

Randomized prospective study of totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: fixation versus no fixation of mesh.

BACKGROUND: Fixation of the mesh during laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair is thought to be necessary to prevent recurrence. However, mesh fixation may increase postoperative pain and lead to an increased risk of complications. We questioned whether elimination of fixation of the mesh during TEP inguinal hernia repair leads to decreased postoperative pain or complications, or both, without an increased rate of recurrence. METHODS: A randomized prospective single-blinded study was carried out in 40 patients who underwent laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with (Group A=20) or without (Group B=20) fixation of the mesh. RESULTS: Patients in whom the mesh was not fixed had shorter hospital length of stay (8.3 vs 16.0 hours, P=0.01), were less likely to be admitted to the hospital (P=0.001), used less postoperative narcotic analgesia in the PACU (P=0.01), and were less likely to develop urinary retention (P=0.04). No significant differences occurred in the level of pain, time to return to normal activity, or the difficulty of the operation between the 2 groups. No hernia recurrences were observed in either group (follow-up range, 6 to 30 months, median=19). CONCLUSIONS: Elimination of tack fixation of mesh during laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair significantly reduces the use of postoperative narcotic analgesia, hospital length of stay, and the development of postoperative urinary retention but does not lead to a significant reduction in postoperative pain. Eliminating tacks does not lead to an increased rate of recurrence.     

Day-case endoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty versus open Lichtenstein hernioplasty for unilateral primary inguinal hernia in males

Background Endoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty (TEP) is an accepted technique for the repair of recurrent and bilateral inguinal hernia, but its role in the management of unilateral primary inguinal hernia remains controversial. The current randomized trial was undertaken to compare the postoperative and 1-year outcomes of day-case TEP and open Lichtenstein hernioplasty for unilateral primary inguinal hernia in males. Methods From January 2002 to January 2004, a total of 200 male patients were randomized to undergo either day-case unilateral TEP or open Lichtenstein hernioplasty under general anesthesia. The primary outcome measures included postoperative pain score, time until return to work, incidence of chronic groin pain, and recurrence rate 1 year after the operation. Results All TEP procedures were successfully performed without conversion. The mean operation time for TEP (50±13.2 min) was significantly shorter than for open Lichtenstein hernioplasty (58 ± 17.6 min) (p < 0.001). The pain score at rest was significantly lower in the TEP group than in the open group on postoperative days 0, 1, 4, 5, and 6. On the average, the patients returned to work 8.6 days after TEP and 14 days after Lichtenstein hernioplasty (p = 0.006). Postoperative recovery and morbidity rates were otherwise comparable between the two groups. The incidence of chronic groin pain 1 year after TEP (9.9%) was significantly lower than after open surgery (21.7%) (p = 0.032). None of the patients in either group showed recurrence at the last follow-up assessment. Conclusions Day-case TEP was superior to open Lichtenstein hernioplasty for the repair of unilateral primary inguinal hernia in males. The benefits of day-case TEP included less postoperative pain, a faster return to work, and a lower incidence of chronic groin pain.     

A prospective randomized controlled trial to compare single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery versus conventional TEP inguinal hernia repair

Introduction

The success of laparoscopic surgery is due to the less surgical trauma, including less operative pain, complications and better cosmetics. Objective of our study was to compare in two blind randomized groups of patients, the surgical outcome of total extra-peritoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair using either single-port or conventional surgical technique. We will report our interim results in the first group of 50 patients.

Materials and methods

Our study is a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted from August 2011 to June 2013. Fifty patients aged between 21 and 80 years undergoing surgery for unilateral inguinal hernia were randomised into two groups: conventional laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair versus single-port TEP repair. Clinical data on patient demographics, surgical technique and findings, postoperative complications and pain scores were collected. Primary endpoint is the postoperative pain while secondary endpoints are recurrence, chronic pain, postoperative hospital stay and complications.

Results

Out of the 50 patients, 26 underwent single-port hernia TEP repair and 24 had conventional 3-port TEP hernia repair after randomization. Mean operative time was 51.7 (±13.4) min in the multiport group and 59.3 (±14.9) min in the single-port group, respectively (P = 0.064). Mean hospital stay was 19.7 (±4.8) h in the conventional group and 22.1 (±4.5) h in the single-port group (P = 0.079). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups for postoperative complications, and no recurrence reported at 11 months follow-up. There was no significant difference in the pain scores (visual analog scale) between the two groups at regular intervals post surgery.

Discussion

The outcomes after laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with a single-port device are comparable to the standard three-port technique.     

Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective,randomized, controlled clinical trial

Background

The advantage of single-port total extra-peritoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair over the conventional technique is still debatable. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of TEP inguinal hernia repair using either a single-port or conventional surgical technique, in two blind randomized groups of patients.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial, 100 patients undergoing surgery for unilateral inguinal hernia were randomized into two groups: One group underwent conventional laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair, while the other was selected for single-port TEP repair. Primary endpoint is postoperative pain (VAS), while secondary endpoints are recurrence, chronic pain and complications.

Results

From 100 patients, 49 underwent single-port hernia TEP repair, 50 had conventional three-port TEP hernia repair, and one patient declined to participate after randomization. The two groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics and operative findings. Mean operative time was 49.1(±13.8) min in the conventional group and 54.1(±14.4) min in the single-port group (p = 0.08). Mean hospital stay was 19.7(±5.8) h in the conventional group and 20.5(±6.4) h in the single-port group (p = 0.489). No major complications and no recurrence reported at 11-month follow-up. No statistically significant difference noted in postoperative pain between the two groups at regular intervals.

Conclusions

The outcomes after laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with a single-port device are similar but not superior to the conventional technique.

     

腹腔镜完全腹膜外与改良腹腔内疝修补术的临床对照分析

目的:比较腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术(total extraperitoneal prosthesis,TEP)和腹腔镜改良腹腔内疝修补术(Modify-intraperitoneal onlay mesh,Modify-IPOM)治疗腹股沟疝的安全性和有效性。方法:回顾分析2005年6月至2007年6月我院行腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术284例(312例次)患者的临床资料,其中完全腹膜前补片植入术134例(152例次),腹腔内网片植入术150例(160例次),比较两组平均手术时间,术后平均住院时间、并发症及复发率。结果:平均手术时间和术后平均住院时间TEP组分别为(48.75±12.14)min和(5.23±1.85)d,Modify-IPOM组分别为(51.46±24.76)min和(5.84±1.52)d,两组无显著差异(P>0.05),术后并发症TEP组8例(6.0%),Modify-IPOM组5例(3.3%),两组无显著差异(P>0.05),TEP组复发1例(0.7%),Modify-IPOM组复发2例(1.3%),两组亦无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论:TEP与Modify-IPOM治疗腹股沟疝均安全有效,值得临床推广。     

腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的术式选择

目的比较经腹腹膜前补片植入术(TAPP)和全腹膜外补片植入术(TEP)的安全性和有效性,探讨腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的术式选择。方法回顾性分析1997年1月至2005年1月行腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的235例(274例次)患者的临床资料,其中TAPP 139例(163例次),TEP 96例(111例次),随访时间6～24个月(中位时间15个月)。结果手术无中转,TAPP和TEP在手术时间、术后住院天数、术后疼痛分数VAS、2周以内恢复非限制性活动人数上差异无统计学意义(均 P>0．05);TAPP和TEP的复发率分别为1．8％和0．9％(P=0．524),总并发症率分别为15．3％和 10．8％(P=0．282),前3位并发症依次为血清肿(5．5％比4．5％,P=0．707),暂时性神经感觉异常 (5．5％比3．6％,P=0．464)和尿潴留(3．1％比2．7％,P=1．000);TAPP住院费用高于TEP(P= 0．000)。结论 TAPP和TEP都是安全有效的无张力手术,外科医生的临床经验比术式选择更为重要。     

腹腔镜下完全腹膜外疝修补术后未留置引流管的效果评价

目的评价腹腔镜下完全腹膜外疝修补术(TEP)后未留置引流管的临床效果。 方法对苏州大学附属第二医院2010年1月至2016年3月期间住院行TEP治疗的832例腹股沟疝患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。非引流组537例术后未行术区腹膜外间隙引流,引流组295例术后行术区腹膜前间隙引流,观察两组的术前一般情况及术后治疗效果及并发症的发生情况,评价是否术后留置引流管。 结果对比引流组,非引流组的手术时间[(38.52 ± 16.43)min vs (45.30 ± 15.71) min,P< 0.001]、术后住院时间[(2.84 ± 0.45)d vs (3.36 ± 0.67)d,P< 0.001]、术后恢复工作时间[(4.57 ± 0.43)周 vs (5.84 ± 0.95)周,P< 0.001]、术后疼痛程度(P< 0.05)、术后尿潴留[6.70% vs 10.85%,P＝0.036 9]等明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P< 0.05),血肿、血清肿[10.99% vs 12.88%,P＝0.4153]等其他术后并发症的发生率,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论经回顾性对比研究,腹股沟疝患者在行TEP手术治疗后不放置引流管更有利于术后恢复,且并不增加术后并发症。