腹腔镜下腹腔内网片植入法和开放式肌后筋膜前补片修补法治疗腹壁切口疝的疗效比较

【摘要】 目的〓比较腹腔镜下腹腔内网片植入法(IPOM)和开放式肌后筋膜前补片修补法(Sublay)治疗腹壁切口疝的疗效。方法〓回顾性分析30例腹腔镜应用IPOM法和28例开放式应用Sublay法治疗腹壁切口疝的病例,比较其手术疗效及术后患者生活质量。结果〓两组手术时间、平均住院时间、术中出血量及术后并发症比较,腹腔镜组均明显优于开放手术组,有统计学差异(P<0.05)。结论〓应用腹腔镜行IPOM治疗腹壁巨大切口疝安全可行,具有有创伤小,住院时间短,恢复快,术后并发症少的优点。     

比较腹腔镜腹腔内与开放腹膜前间隙补片置入术治疗腹壁切口疝的效果

目的比较腹腔镜腹腔内补片置入术(IPOM)与开放腹膜前间隙补片置入术(Sublay)治疗腹壁切口疝的效果。方法选取2016-01—2019-01间在郑州大学第一附属医院接受疝修补术治疗的76例腹壁切口疝患者,将36例行腹腔镜IPOM术的患者作为腔镜组。将40例行开放Sublay术的患者作为开放组。回顾性分析患者的临床资料。结果2组患者均成功完成手术。2组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。腔镜组术中出血量、术后肠蠕动恢复时间及住院时间均少于开放组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。腔镜组术后近期疼痛发生率低于开放组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),其余并发症差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论腹腔镜IPOM术具有创伤小、恢复快、疼痛轻、出血少、并发症少等优点,具有更广阔的应用前景。     

Laparoscopic incisional hernia mesh repair with the "double-crown" technique: a case-control study

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a main complication of abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic hernia mesh repair has been demonstrated to be as effective as open repair. However, the mesh fixation method is, to date, a matter of debate, and there are few clinical studies evaluating a single technique. This was a case-control study to assess the "double-crown" fixation method. METHODS: From March 2000 to November 2005, we prospectively collected operative and outcome data on 94 laparoscopic mesh repairs of large incisional hernias performed by using the double-crown technique. The data were compared with those from a retrospective review of 87 matched open incisional hernia repairs done from January 1995 to January 2000. RESULTS: The open and laparoscopic repair groups were comparable in patient age, sex, and hernia size. Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group; the duration of hospitalization and number of early postoperative complications (e.g., wound infection and prolonged ileus) were significantly greater in the open group. Recurrence rate after a mean follow-up of 38 months (range, 12-72) was 2.1% in the laparoscopic group and 6.9% in the open repair group (mean follow-up, 8 years; range, 5-10) (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Medium-term results indicate that laparoscopic incisional hernia repair with the double-crown technique has a low complication rate and a comparable recurrence rate to open repair.     

Incisional hernia risk after hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) bridges traditional open surgery and pure laparoscopy. The HALS technique provides the necessary site for organ retrieval, reduces operative time, and realizes the postoperative benefits of laparoscopic techniques. Although the reported rates of incisional hernia should be theoretically low, we sought to determine our incidence of hernia after HALS procedures. A retrospective review of all HALS procedures was performed from July 2006 to June 2011. All patients who developed postoperative incisional hernias at the hand port site were confirmed by imaging or examination findings. Patient factors were reviewed to determine any predictors of hernia formation. Over the 5 years, 405 patients undergoing HALS procedures were evaluated: colectomy (264), nephrectomy (107), splenectomy/pancreatectomy (18), and ostomy reversal (10). The overall incidence of incisional hernia was 10.6 per cent. There were three perioperative wound dehiscences. The mean body mass index was significantly higher in the hernia group versus the no hernia cohort (32.1 vs 29.2 kg/m(2); P = 0.001). The hernia group also had a higher incidence of renal disease (18.6 vs 7.2%; P = 0.018). Mean time to hernia formation was 11.4 months (range, 1 to 57 months). Follow-up was greater than 12 months in 188 (46%) of patients, in which the rate of incisional hernia was 17 per cent. The rate of incisional hernia formation after hand-assisted laparoscopic procedures is higher than the reported literature. Because the mean time to hernia development is approximately 1 year, it is important to follow these patients to this end point to determine the true incidence of incisional hernia after hand-assisted laparoscopy.     

Results of laparoscopic versus open abdominal and incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal surgery. The object of this study was to confirm the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of laparoscopic treatment of abdominal wall defects. METHODS: Fifty consecutive laparoscopic abdominal and incisional hernia repairs from September 2001 to May 2003 were compared with 50 open anterior repairs. RESULTS: The 2 groups were not different for age, body mass index, or American Society of Anaesthesiologists scores. Mean operative time was 59 minutes for the laparoscopic group, 164.5 minutes for the open group. Mean hernia diameter was 10.6 cm for the laparoscopic group, 10.5 cm for the open group. Mean length of stay was 2.1 days for the laparoscopic group, 8.1 days for the open group. Complications occurred in 16% of the laparoscopic and 50% of open group. Median follow-up was 9.0 months for the laparoscopic group, 24.5 months for the open group. Recurrence rates were 2% for laparoscopic group and 0% for the open group. CONCLUSION: Results for laparoscopic abdominal and incisional hernia repair seem to be superior to results for open repair in terms of operative time, length of stay, wound infection, major complications, and overall hospital reimbursement.     

Hernioplasty and simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study of open tension-free versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic repair of unilateral primary groin hernia remains controversial. This randomized study evaluates the outcome of the laparoscopic technique in hernia repair in patients undergoing simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and compares laparoscopic repair with tension-free open groin hernia repair. METHODS: Sixty-four low-risk patients with symptomatic chronic calculous cholecystitis and synchronous unilateral primary inguinal hernia were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal mesh hernia repair (TAPP) and LC or LC and open tension-free hernia repair. RESULTS: The operating time was longer in the TAPP and LC group (mean +/- SD = 121 +/- 32 minutes) than in the LC and open group (95 +/- 27 minutes) (P <.01). The mean operating costs were higher in the TAPP and LC group ($1235 versus $1080) (P <.03). The intensity of postoperative pain at rest was greater in the LC and open group at 24 hours (P <.01) and 48 hours (P <.05), with a greater consumption of pain medication (P <.01). No differences between the 2 groups were found in terms of postoperative complications, disability period before return to work, or hernia recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: The totally laparoscopic procedure does not result in a significant benefit other than improved comfort in the first 2 postoperative days. However, laparoscopic hernia repair is considerably more difficult to perform than open tension-free hernioplasty. Thus, the totally laparoscopic approach should be performed only by experienced laparoscopic surgeons with special expertise in hernia surgery.     

Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after liver transplantation.

Incisional hernias occur in up to 17% of patients after liver transplantation. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair is associated with fewer wound complications and a decreased incidence of recurrence when compared to open hernia repair in nontransplant patients. This is a retrospective review of 13 patients who underwent laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LAP group) after liver transplantation compared to 14 patients who had open repairs (OP group; all but one with mesh). Primary immunosuppression in both groups at the time of transplantation was tacrolimus, but more patients in the LAP group were on sirolimus at the time of hernia, while more patients in the OP group were on prednisone at the time of hernia repair. All operations were completed with a laparoscopic approach; there were no conversions to open. Length of stay differed significantly between the 2 groups, with a mean of 5.4 days for the LAP group compared to 2.7 days in the OP group (0.0059). Complications occurred in 2 (15%) of the patients in the LAP group and 5 (36%) in the OP group. One patient in the LAP group required mesh removal to exclude causes of recurrent ascites, and 1 in the OP group for mesh infection. One (7.6%) of the patients in the LAP group developed a recurrence, compared to 29% (4) of the OP group (P =0.3259). In conclusion, laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is safe in patients after liver transplantation, with a low risk of infection or recurrence.     

Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair of incisional and primary ventral hernia: results of a prospective randomized study

Background Incisional hernia is an important complication of abdominal surgery. Its repair has progressed from a primary suture repair to various mesh repairs and laparoscopic repair. Laparoscopic mesh repair is a promising alternative, and in the absence of consensus, needs prospective randomized controlled trials. Methods Between April 2003 and April 2005, 66 patients with incisional, primary ventral and recurrent hernias were randomized to receive either open retrorectus mesh repair or laparoscopic mesh repair. These patients were followed up at 1-, 3-, and 6-month intervals thereafter for a mean of 12.17 months (open repair group) and 13.73 months (laparoscopic repair group). Results Lower abdominal hernias after gynecologic operations constituted the majority of the hernias (∼50%) in both groups. There was no significant injury to viscera or vessel in either group and no conversions. The defect size was 42.12 cm² in the open (group 1) and 65.66 cm² in the laparoscopic group (group 2), and the prosthesis sizes were, respectively, 152.67 cm² and 203.83 cm². The hospital stay was 3.43 days in open group and 1.47 days in laparoscopic group (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the pain scores between the two groups. More wound-related infectious complications occurred in the open group (33%) than in the laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.013). There was one recurrence in the open repair group (3%) and two recurrences in laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.55). Conclusions Laparoscopic repair of incisional and ventral hernias is superior to open mesh repair in terms of significantly less blood loss, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, and excellent cosmetic outcome.     

Long-term outcomes in laparoscopic vs open ventral hernia repair

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there was a difference in morbidity, recurrence rate, and length of hospital stay between patients undergoing open or laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-institution cohort study. We compared prospectively collected patient cohorts undergoing laparoscopic or open intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair. Statistical analysis was performed by Fisher exact test and analysis of variance. PATIENTS: Between October 1995 and December 2005, data from 360 consecutive patients who had undergone open or laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair of a ventral hernia were prospectively collected in a database and were supplemented by record review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morbidity, hernia recurrence, and length of hospital stay. Postoperative complications of Clavien grade II or greater were considered major complications. RESULTS: Intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair was performed in 233 patients by the open approach and in 127 patients using the laparoscopic approach. The groups were similar for sex and body mass index (calculated as the weight in kilograms divided by the height in meters squared); the mean age of the laparoscopic group was 3 years younger; and the mesh was larger in the laparoscopic group. Mean follow-up was 30 and 36 months for the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively; the conversion rate was 4%. Major morbidities were 15% in the open group vs 7% in the laparoscopic group (P = .01). Recurrence rates were 9% in the open group vs 12% in the laparoscopic group (P = .36). Postoperative inpatient admission was more frequent after the open procedure than after the laparoscopic procedure (28% vs 16%, respectively; P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes did not differ with respect to recurrence rates after long-term follow-up; however, the lower rate of major morbidity and increased outpatient-based procedure rates favor laparoscopic repair in this study.     

Outcomes Following Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Incisional Hernia

Aim The purpose of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic or open surgery for incisional hernia repair using meta-analytical techniques. Methods A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes on laparoscopic versus open surgery for incisional hernia repair. A random-effect meta-analytical model was used and subgroup analysis performed on high-quality studies, those reporting on more than 30 patients, and those published since 2000. Results Five studies, with a total of 351 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Laparoscopic surgery was attempted in 148 (42.2%) patients. Overall, in the laparoscopic group, operative time was significantly longer—by 12.0 minutes (P = 0.03) and length of stay reduced by 3.3 days (P < 0.003) although this finding was associated with significant heterogeneity between studies (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the short-term adverse events between the groups, but there were fewer wound infections for laparoscopic patients in high-quality studies [odds ratio (OR) = 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05, 0.85, P = 0.03] and those reporting on more than 30 patients (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.84, P = 0.03). No difference in hernia recurrence was shown in the overall or subgroup analysis. Conclusions Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair was associated with a reduced length of stay and lower wound infection rate. The impact on post-operative quality of life and financial implications needs further prospective, validated evaluation.     

腹腔镜与传统开放修补术治疗超重与肥胖患者腹壁切口疝的对比分析

目的探讨腹腔镜与传统开放修补术治疗超重与肥胖患者腹壁切口疝的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2007年4月至2015年10月收治的45例超重和肥胖的腹壁切口疝患者的临床资料,其中腹腔镜手术组24例,传统开放手术组21例。比较两组患者的一般资料和手术相关情况。所得数据采用SPSS 19.0统计学软件进行处理。手术时间、住院时间、术中出血量、术后疼痛评分情况等计量数据用(x珋±s)表示,采用t检验;术后切口并发症发生率和复发率等计数资料用率表示,采用χ~2检验;P0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果腹腔镜手术组手术时间(76±19.3)min、住院时间(7.4±2.3)d、术中出血量(23±9.5)ml均少于传统开放手术组(96±21.2)min、(9.1±1.2)d和(185±32.4)ml(t=3.291,t=3.162,t=22.892,P均0.05);术后疼痛程度(3.0±0.8)低于传统开放手术组(6.3±0.9)(t=12.073,P0.05);术后切口并发症发生率低于传统开放手术组(χ~2=5.017,P0.05);但两组患者在复发率方面无明显差异(χ~2=1.416,P0.05)。结论腹腔镜修补术治疗超重与肥胖腹壁切口疝患者手术创伤小、术后恢复快,切口并发症少,值得提倡。     

Mesh repair of incisional hernia: comparison of laparoscopic and open repair.

OBJECTIVE: To compare our results of open and laparoscopic mesh repair of incisional hernias. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Teaching hospitals, The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: All patients who had had a laparoscopic (n = 25) or an open (n = 76) mesh repair of incisional hernia between January 1996 and January 2000. INTERVENTIONS: Physical examination at the time of the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morbidity and recurrence. RESULTS: The groups were comparable. 11 patients (14%) developed postoperative infections after open repair and 1 (4%) after laparoscopic repair (p = 0.29). Median hospital stay was 5 days (range 1-19) in the open group and 4 (range 1-11) in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.28). The 2-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 18% after open repair (median follow-up of 17 months (range 1-46) and 15% after laparoscopic repair (median follow-up of 15 months, range 1-44). Recurrences in the laparoscopic group were all among the first 7 cases in which the mesh was fixed with staples alone. CONCLUSION: There were fewer infections and hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group, but not significantly so. Recurrence rates were comparable.     

Laparoscopic repair of incisional and ventral hernia

The application of laparoscopic principles to ventral or incisional hernia repair has recently been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to open procedures. In this study we analyzed our recent experience with laparoscopic incisional-ventral hernia repair. The outcomes of 75 consecutive patients (January 2002 to July 2006) who underwent laparoscopic repair for incisional-ventral hernia were reviewed. Patient's demographics, hernia parameters, and intraoperative and postoperative data were collected. Of the 75 patients, 44 were females and 31 males. Mean age was 59.1 yrs (range 29-80 yrs). Mean BMI was 25.9 (range 19.4-36.7). Twenty-one patients had primary ventral hernias while 54 patients had an incisional hernia. Fifty-three patients had a single defect and 22 patients multiple defects. In 45 cases the incisional hernia was a primary hernia; in 4 cases it was a first recurrence; in 2 cases a 2nd recurrence; and in 3 cases a 3rd recurrence. The mean defect size was 52,7 cm2 (range 4-432). Laparoscopic hernia repair was successfully performed in 71 cases (94.7%). The mean mesh size was 211 cm2 (range 63-694). Mean operating time was 101 min (range 50-220 min). The mean hospital stay was 4.7 days. The postoperative morbidity rate was 14%. After a mean follow-up of 24.6 months (range 7-56) the recurrence rate was 7% (5/71). Laparoscopic repair of incisional-ventral hernias seems to be safe and effective. Medium-term outcomes were promising with a relatively low rate of conversion to open surgery, a low complication rate and a low risk of recurrence.     

Cine magnetic resonance imaging vs high-resolution ultrasonography for detection of adhesions after laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair: a matched pair pilot analysis

Background Intraabdominal adhesions represent nonspecific complications before or after laparoscopic or open incisional hernia repair. The objective of this matched control pilot study was to display long-term adhesions noninvasively by applying functional cine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, as compared with applying high-resolution ultrasonography (US). Methods The study group, composed of 17 consecutive patients (12 men and 5 women; mean age, 52 years), underwent laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) mesh. Their mean body mass index was 30 kg/m², and the size of the hernia was 95 cm². Another group, matched for age, gender, and type of hernia, was subjected to open abdominal wall repair using the preperitoneal sublay technique with a large-pore, low-weight polypropylene mesh. For cine MR imaging (1.5 T), section-by-section dynamic depiction of induced visceral slide throughout the entire abdomen was achieved by applying transverse or sagittal true fast imaging with steady-state precession sequences. The location and type of adhesions were compared with high-resolution ultrasonography using nine segments of the abdominal map. Results The patients subjected to laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair were examined 16 and 28 months after surgery. The findings showed functional cine MR imaging as superior to high-resolution ultrasonography for assessing the amount of intraabdominal adhesions (n = 53 vs n = 3; p < 0.01). Most frequently, adhesions were seen between small bowel loops and the abdominal wall (n = 22), followed by bowel-to-bowel adhesions (n = 19; p < 0.05). However, adhesions between small bowel loops and the abdominal wall occurred more frequently after open mesh repair (p < 0.05). Furthermore, a strong correlation was observed between patient complaints and findings with cine MR imaging (p < 0.05). Maximum pain correlated significantly with the region of the most distinctive adhesions (p < 0.05). Conclusions Functional cine MR imaging represents a reliable noninvasive technique for detecting long-term adhesions after open and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. The study results suggest that this approach has distinct advantages over high-resolution ultrasonography.     

Laparoscopic colorectal resection does not reduce incisional hernia rates when compared with open colorectal resection

Background Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been reported to have some advantages compared with open surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of incisional hernias after elective open colorectal resection versus laparoscopic colorectal resection. Methods The study group consisted of 104 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection or reversal of a Hartmann’s procedure between November 2003 and March 2005. Baseline data were prospectively recorded on all patients. All were examined by an independent observer for evidence of incisional hernia after they had reached a minimum follow up of one year. Results At a median follow up of 22 (17–26) months, nine patients had died and 95 were reviewed. Of these, 32 underwent laparoscopic resection while 63 had open surgery. Patients were well matched for all baseline characteristics. The median length of the wound in the laparoscopic group was 9 cm (IQR: 8–11 cm) while in the open group it was 20.8 cm (IQR: 17–24 cm). There was no significant difference in incisional hernia rates between the groups (3 vs. 10, p = 0.52) or in those who had symptoms from their hernia (p = 0.773). Conclusions Laparoscopic colorectal resection does not appear to reduce incisional hernia rates when compared with open surgery. Large randomised trials are required to confirm these findings.     

Laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair: A more effective alternative to conventional repair of recurrent incisional hernia

Conventional repair of recurrent ventral incisional hernia is associated with a higher recurrence rate (30%-50%) than repair of primary incisional hernia (11%-20%). Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LIHR) can significantly reduce the recurrence rate of primary hernia to less than 5%. In this study, we evaluate the efficacy of repairing recurrent incisional hernia laparoscopically. One-hundred and seventy consecutive patients undergoing LIHR between January 1995 and December 2002 were prospectively reviewed. Patients with recurrent incisional hernia (n = 69) were compared to patients with primary incisional hernia (n = 101). Patient demographics and perioperative and postoperative data were recorded prospectively. Follow-up was obtained from office visits and telephone interviews. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student t test and the x ²test. Results are expressed as means ± standard deviation. The patients with recurrent incisional hernia had a mean of 1.9 ± 1.3 previous repairs, higher body mass index (BMI) (34 ± 6 kg/m² vs. 33 ± 8 kg/m², P = 0.46), larger defect size (123 ± 115 cm² vs. 101 ± 108 cm², P = 0.06), and longer operative time (119 ± 61 minutes vs. 109 ± 44 minutes, P= 0.11). The complication rate was higher in the recurrent group (28% vs. 11%, P = 0.01), but the recurrence rate was not different (7% vs. 5%, P= 0.53). The mean time to recurrence was significantly shorter in the recurrent group (3 ± 2 months vs. 14 ± 7 months, P < 0.0001). The mean follow-up interval was 19 ± 18 months in the recurrent group and 27 ± 20 months in the primary group. Although laparoscopic repair of recurrent incisional hernia resulted in a higher recurrence and complication rate than laparoscopic repair of primary incisional hernia, the rates were lower than those reported for conventional repair of recurrent incisional hernia. Laparoscopic repair of recurrent incisional hernia is an effective alternative to conventional repair. Supported in part by Tyco/US Surgical Corporation through an educational grant to the University of Kentucky Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery.     

Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after colorectal surgery. Is it possible to maintain a mini-invasive approach?

Several benefits have been described in laparoscopic surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and the results of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after LCRS. Between May 2001 and March 2014, all charts of consecutive patients who underwent LCRS and developed an incisional hernia were evaluated. Patients with parastomal hernias or those with less than 6 months of follow-up were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic repair group (LR) and open repair group (OR). Demographics, surgical factors, and 30-day postoperative complications were analyzed. The incisional ventral hernia rate was 7 % (90/1290), and 82 incisional hernia repairs were performed. In 49 patients (60 %) an open approach was performed, and there were 33 laparoscopic repairs (2 converted due to small bowel injury). Mean age was 62 years. Average body mass index was 27.4 ± 5.2 kg/m². The mean defect size was 56 (4–527) cm², and there were no differences between the groups (LR: 49 cm² vs OR: 63 cm²; p = NS). Average operative time was 107 (45–240) minutes (LR: 93 min vs OR: 116 min, p = 0.02). OR showed a higher rate of postoperative complications (OR: 51 % vs LR: 18 %, p = 0.003) and increased hospital stay (OR: 2.77 ± 4 days vs LR: 0.7 ± 0.4 days; p = 0.02). The recurrence rate was 15 % (12 patients, 6 each group; p = NS) after a follow-up of 48 (r: 6–141) months. Laparoscopic approach for incisional hernia repair after LCRS seems to be safe and feasible. Patients who received laparoscopic approach showed significantly less postoperative complications and shorter hospital staying. These observations suggest that mini-invasive surgery may be the initial approach in patients who develop an incisional hernia after LCRS.     

腹腔镜联合开腹补片修补术对巨大切口疝及肠黏连紧密腹壁切口疝患者临床研究

目的分析腹腔镜结合开腹补片修补术对腹部切口疝患者治疗效果。 方法回顾性分析湖北省肿瘤医院肝胆胰外科自2011年2月至2018年2月收治的腹壁切口疝患者133例,其中62例行开腹补片修补术为对照组,余71例行腹腔镜结合开腹补片修补术为观察组;观察患者手术状况、术后恢复状况,术后1 d采用ELISA法检测血清氧化应激指标,包含胰岛素（InS）、β-内啡肽（β-EP）、生长激素（GH）和总抗氧化能力（T-AOC）含量,术后对患者随访1年,记录患者术后并发症和复发率情况。 结果观察组患者术中失血量低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;观察组患者术后下床活动时间、肠功能恢复时间、首次进食时间、肠鸣音恢复时间及住院时间均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;术后1 d观察组患者血清InS、GH及T-AOC含量高于对照组,β-EP含量低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;观察组患者并发症发生率低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。 结论腹腔镜联合开腹补片修补术对巨大切口疝及肠黏连紧密腹壁切口疝患者疗效显著,患者创伤小、术后恢复快,且术后并发症发生率和复发率降低。     

开放手术辅助腹腔镜与完全腹腔镜下修补术治疗腹壁切口疝的临床研究

目的探讨分析开放手术辅助腹腔镜与完全腹腔镜下修补术治疗腹壁切口疝的临床疗效和应用。 方法回顾性分析2016年1月至2018年6月在首都医科大学附属北京潞河医院普外科就诊并进行手术治疗的41例腹壁切口疝患者的临床资料。按照随机数字法表随机分为观察组和对照组。其中观察组20例,行开放手术辅助腹腔镜疝修补术;对照组21例,行完全腹腔镜下疝修补术。比较2组患者手术情况以及术后恢复、随访并发症情况。应用SPSS 21.0统计学软件进行数据处理。 结果观察组患者手术时间（106.81±33.90）min,术中出血量（14.05±7.85）ml,并发症发生1例（5%）;对照组分别为（126.75±23.36）min,（27.25±15）ml,3例（14.29%）,差异有统计学意义（P均<0.05）。观察组术后排气时间（2.05±0.51）d、住院天数（6.95±2.31）d,对照组分别为（1.71±0.64）d、（6.38±1.24）d,差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。 结论开放手术辅助腹腔镜修补术治疗腹壁切口疝可明显缩短手术时间,减少术中出血,减少术后并发症的发生,效果显著,是一种安全有效的治疗方法。     

Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia mesh repair: a prospective study

Background An incisional hernia develops in 3% to 13% of laparotomy incisions, with primary suture repair of ventral hernias yielding unsatisfactory results. The introduction of a prosthetic mesh to ensure abdominal wall strength without tension has decreased the recurrence rate, but open repair requires significant soft tissue dissection in tissues that are already of poor quality as well as flap creation, increasing complication rates and affecting the recurrence rate. A minimally invasive approach was applied to the repair pf ventral hernias, with the expectation of earlier recovery, fewer postoperative complications, and decreased recurrence rates. This prospective study was performed to objectively analyze and compare the outcomes after open and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Methods The outcomes for 50 unselected patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair were compared with those for 50 consecutive unselected patients who underwent open repair. The open surgical operations were performed by the Rives and Stoppa technique using prosthetic mesh, whereas the laparoscopic repairs were performed using the intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair technique in all cases. Results The study group consisted of 100 patients (82 women and 18 men) with a mean age of 55.25 years (range, 30–83 years). The patients in the two groups were comparable at baseline in terms of sex, presenting complaints, and comorbid conditions. The patients in laparoscopic group had larger defects (93.96 vs 55.88 cm²; p = 0.0023). The mean follow-up time was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.5640–23.0227 months). The mean surgery durations were 90.6 min for the laparoscopic repair and 93.3 min for the open repair (p = 0.769, nonsignificant difference). The mean postoperative stay was shorter for the laparoscopic group than for the open hernia group (2.7 vs 4.7 days; p = 0.044). The pain scores were similar in the two groups at 24 and 48 h, but significantly less at 72 h in the laparoscopic group (mean visual analog scale score, 2.9412 vs 4.1702; p = 0.001). There were fewer complications (24%) and recurrences (2%) among the patients who underwent laparoscopic repair than among those who had open repair (30% and 10%, respectively). Conclusions The findings demonstrate that laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in our experience was safe and resulted in shorter operative time, fewer complications, shorter hospital stays, and less recurrence. Hence, it should be considered as the procedure of choice for ventral hernia repair.