开放式腹膜前间隙UHS疝修补术与Lichtenstein修补术后并发症分析

［摘要］ 目的 对比开放腹膜前间隙超普装置（UHS）腹股沟疝修补术与开放Lichtenstein修补术的临床疗效。方法 选择2013年1月至2018年12月间213例分别采用UHS疝修补术与Lichtenstein修补术的腹股沟疝患者临床资料,入组条件为临床和随访资料完整,包括UHS疝修补术101例（UHS组）,Lichtenstein疝修补术112例（Lichtenstein组）;所有患者均完成为期1年随访,记录和比较两组的手术时间、平均住院时间、术后局部不适、疼痛、复发等临床资料,评价两种手术方式的疗效。结果 两组手术时间、术后平均住院时间方面,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,两组术后早期并发症如血肿、阴囊水肿、感染均没有统计学意义。UHS组在腹股沟区不适、慢性疼痛、缺血性睾丸炎明显少于Lichtenstein组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。术后随访1年,Lichtenstein组有5例复发,UHS组未发现复发患者。结论 本组病例数据显示,采用开放腹股沟疝修补术的术式中,超普装置（UHS）腹股沟疝修补术较Lichtenstein修补术的远期并发症少。     

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术与Lichtenstein术在成人腹股沟嵌顿疝的疗效

目的探讨腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术（TAPP）与Lichtenstein术在成人腹股沟嵌顿疝治疗中的临床应用比较。 方法回顾分析2014年1月至2019年1月,上海中医药大学附属普陀医院急诊收治并完成无张力疝修补手术病例共82例成人腹股沟嵌顿疝患者临床资料,根据手术方式不同分为2组。观察组38例,行TAPP术;对照组44例,行Lichtenstein术。将2组手术时间,术后住院时间,术后疼痛评分,术后血清肿,术后其他并发症（复发、术后感染、术后肠坏死、出血）,术后总费用等进行统计学分析。 结果2组在术后血清肿及其他并发症上比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;研究组手术时间及住院费用明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;研究组术后住院时间及术后疼痛评分低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。 结论TAPP术较Lichtenstein术手术时间长,术后总费用相对高,但其具有创伤小、疼痛轻、恢复快、复发率低等特点。     

540例老年腹股沟疝无张力疝修补术的围手术期处理

目的：总结无张力疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝的围手术期处理经验。方法：回顾性分析1999年1月～2004年10月应用无张力疝修补术治疗老年腹股沟疝540例的临床资料，其中Bard Mesh PerFix plug462例，Prolene Hernia System(PHS)78例。结果：全部病人治愈出院。手术时间30～140min，平均45min。平均住院5d，术后伤口均一期愈合．无一例切口感染。术后疼痛轻微，仅7例应用止痛药。术后并发尿潴留11例，皮下血肿5例，阴囊血肿3例。术后随访3～70个月，疝复发2例。结论：无张力疝修补术创伤小、恢复快、并发症少、复发率低。加强围手术期处理能增加手术的安全性．降低并发症。     

Lichtenstein疝修补术和网塞修补术治疗原发性腹股沟疝的Meta分析

目的系统评价前入路平片（Lichtenstein）无张力疝修补术与网塞充填式（Mesh-plug）无张力疝修补术在腹股沟疝治疗中的应用效果。 方法制订纳入和排除标准,检索数据库中发表时间在2000年1月至2019年6月的文献,并结合所查找文献中的参考文献,选择有关Lichtenstein疝修补与Mesh-plug疝修补治疗原发性腹股沟疝的临床随机对照研究,由2位作者分别进行质量评估并提取数据资料,结局指标包括手术时间、术后复发、补片费用、血肿与血清肿、腹股沟区不适感、疼痛及感染情况,将最终纳入的文献数据整理后进行Meta分析。 结果共有10篇RCT研究纳入分析,Lichtenstein组1472例,Mesh-plug组1457例。Meta分析结果显示：与Mesh-plug疝修补术相比,Lichtenstein疝修补术后血肿、血清肿发生率更低[RR=1.45,95% CI（1.02,2.06）,P=0.04],手术费用更少[WMD=155.15,95% CI（112.78,197.53）,P<0.000 01],但手术时间稍长[WMD=－7.51,95% CI（－11.33,－3.68）,P=0.0001]。而两者术后腹股沟区不适感、感染、复发、早期疼痛评分以及慢性疼痛的发生率无明显差异。 结论与Mesh-plug疝修补术相比,Lichtenstein疝修补术在降低术后血清肿、血肿发生率以及手术费用方面有一定优势,但手术时间稍长,建议在临床上Lichtenstein疝修补术优先Mesh-plug疝修补术使用。     

Randomized clinical trial of Lichtenstein patch or Prolene Hernia System for inguinal hernia repair

BACKGROUND: In this randomized prospective study the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair with either Lichtenstein mesh or the Prolene Hernia System (PHS) were evaluated. METHODS: Postoperative pain and time to return to work, driving and sporting hobbies were recorded after 300 inguinal hernia repairs done by one of the two methods. Long-term sequelae and complications were assessed at follow-up visits 1 week, 1 month and 1 year after the operation. RESULTS: The median duration of operation for unilateral primary hernia was 37 min for the Lichtenstein operation and 27 min for the PHS procedure (P < 0.001). Postoperative pain was similar after both operations. Median sick leave was 7 days in both groups. Time to driving a car was 4 versus 3 days, and time to return to sporting hobbies 13 versus 11 days, in the Lichtenstein and PHS groups, respectively. Apart from a residual femoral hernia after Lichtenstein repair, no recurrent inguinal hernias were detected. CONCLUSION: Both Lichtenstein and PHS methods resulted in rapid recovery and low recurrence rates. The PHS operation was significantly quicker.     

UHS与Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术的对比研究

目的比较腹股沟疝应用UHS装置与Lichtenstein修补术式的优缺点。方法回顾性分析2010-12—2012-12间行UHS疝修补114例与Lichtenstein疝修补88例手术时间、术后住院天数、慢性疼痛、并发症等资料。结果 2种术式在住院时间、复发率等方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);Lichtenstein修补术手术时间明显短,手术费用低,但术后慢性疼痛评分较高。结论应用UHS装置与Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术均可以用于腹股沟疝修补,各有优缺点。     

腹腔镜全腹膜外疝修补术与Lichtenstein修补术的对比研究

目的:对比腹腔镜全腹膜外网片修补术与Lichtenstein修补术的临床疗效.方法:选择2008年3月至2009年12月86例腹股沟疝患者,随机分为两组,观察组行腹腔镜全腹膜外网片疝修补术,对照组行Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术.对比两组患者术后并发症、住院时间、下床时间等,术后随访7～27个月,对比两组的复发...     

Gold standard for inguinal hernia repair: Shouldice or Lichtenstein?

Summary In the knowledge that Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair is becoming increasingly popular we evaluated this technique in a prospective randomized study. Would the Lichtenstein repair show significant advantages in order to justify it replacing the Shouldice technique, the standard for hernia repair of the last ten years? Between January 1996 and December 1997 the study was undertaken on 385 male patients suffering from 410 primary inguinal hernias. On 164 patients the Shouldice technique (SD) was used and on 221 patients the Lichtenstein repair (LS). 50 % of the operations were performed under local anesthesia, 50 % under spinal anesthesia. The 410 operations were done by 51 different surgeons, most of them in trainee programs. The postoperative local complication rate and duration of hospitalization were similar in both groups. Significant differences were noted concerning operation-time (LS: 80 min, SD: 88 min, p < 0,005) and return to work (LS: 25 days, SD: 41 days, p < 0,00005). The tension-free repair under local anesthesia described by Lichtenstein is an easy operation, with a low complication rate and short recovery period. The Lichtenstein technique is an ideal hernia repair with low costs, high patient comfort and suitability for day-surgery.     

腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补与开放性腹股沟疝修补的疗效对比研究

【摘要】〓目的〓比较腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补与开放性腹股沟疝修补的优缺点。方法 对2012年5月~2013年5月中山市中医院240例成人腹股沟疝修补术进行回顾性分析,其中开放性疝修补术(开腹疝修补组)148例,腹腔镜疝修补术(腔镜疝修补组)92例。收集两组患者的手术时间、住院时间、住院费用、术后复发、术后慢性疼痛、术后阴囊积液及术后感染的临床资料并进行比较。 结果 开腹疝修补组患者在平均手术时间、平均住院费用少于腔镜疝修补(P均<0.01);开腹疝修补组术后复发(3例)、术后慢性疼痛(11例)、术后阴囊积液(2例)及术后感染(1例)等总并发症高于腔镜疝修补组(P<0.05);两组的平均住院时间差异无统计学意义。结论 腔镜组腹股沟疝修补术具有较少的术后并发症,但在住院时间、住院费用方面没有优势。     

Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝4011例

目的：评估Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的结果并总结临床经验。方法回顾性分析3 631例腹股沟疝患者的4011例（其中双侧疝380例）Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术的临床资料。结果 经Lichtenstein手术治疗的3 631例腹股沟疝患者平均住院3.8d,术后并发症发病率为2.4％,复发率为0.1％。结论 在局麻下对腹股沟疝患者施行Lichtenstein手术具有术后恢复快、复发率和并发症发病率低的特点。     

腹腔镜完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术与Lichtenstein修补术的比较

目的对比腹腔镜完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术与Lichtenstein修补术的临床疗效。方法选择2008年4月至2009年5月245例腹股沟疝患者,随机分成两组,TEP组行腹腔镜全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术,Lichtenstein组行Lichtenstein修补术。对比两组患者手术时间、平均住院时间、住院费用、平均恢复正常活动时间以及近远期并发症等指标,评价两种手术方式的疗效。结果 TEP组行单侧疝修补术的手术时间长,平均住院费用高,术中中转手术方式比例高,但恢复正常活动时间短,术后近远期并发症少。结论尽管TEP术存在手术时间长、住院费用高、术中中转手术概率高等缺点,但术后疼痛少,恢复正常活动时间短,对于有经验的外科医生应作为首选术式。     

腹腔镜诊治老年嵌顿性腹股沟疝62例临床分析

目的:探讨腹腔镜技术诊治老年嵌顿性腹股沟疝的应用价值。方法:回顾分析2017年1月至2019年2月收治的62例老年嵌顿性腹股沟疝患者的临床资料,包括一般资料、手术成功率、并发症发生率、死亡率、复发率。结果:62例患者中斜疝59例,直疝1例,股疝2例,患者均完成腹腔镜探查及疝内容物还纳,其中5例行肠切除加内环口成形术,55例行腹腔镜经腹膜前疝修补术,2例中转李金斯坦术。手术时间平均(76.4±18.9)min;平均住院(5.9±1.8)d;术后发生血清肿发生率2例(3.2%),无切口感染、慢性疼痛发生;死亡率1.6%(1/62)。术后随访4~24个月,随访率78.7%(48/61),无复发病例。结论:腹腔镜技术具有探查优势,诊治老年嵌顿性腹股沟疝安全、有效。     

A Prospective Randomized Study of Lichtenstein Open Tension-free Versus Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Techniques for Inguinal Hernia Repair

Ideal technique for effective inguinal hernia repair is still controversial. Although open tension free mesh techniques of inguinal hernia repair offers good results but the superiority of laparoscopic technique was reported for postoperative pain, discomfort and earlier return back to work. A prospective, randomized study was conducted to compare Lichtenstein open tension free mesh technique with the laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal technique. 62 male patients with Lichtenstein open tension free mesh technique and 61 male patients with totally extraperitoneal technique were operated and compared postoperatively. The patients were followed-up for 24 months with a median of 18 months. In terms of recurrence, postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, complications, hospital stay lenght, duration of limitation of normal daily activities there were no significant differences between the two groups. Operating time for totally extraperitoneal hernia repair was 16 minutes longer than Lichtenstein open tension free technique. The totally extraperitoneal technique was considerably expensive than Lichtenstein technique, however the duration of returning back to work was shorter in patients repaired with totally extraperitoneal technique.

In conclusion in primary inguinal hernia repair Lichtenstein technique should be preferred and the totally extraperito neal technique should be considered for recurrent and bilateral hernias.     

局麻下开放腹膜前复发性腹股沟疝修补术的临床疗效

目的总结局部麻醉下,开放腹膜前复发性腹股沟疝修补术的临床疗效。 方法回顾性分析自2016年6月至2018年1月,陕西省第四人民医院普外科收治的36例成人复发性直疝患者。行局部麻醉下单纯腹膜前修补术,观察其手术时间、术后住院时间、术后疼痛、术后复发等数据。 结果本组患者平均手术时间为单侧26 min（19～36 min）,双侧46 min（39～65 min）。术后回病房即可饮食,术后局部腹带加压12～24 h,手术当天下床活动,住院期间伤口轻度疼痛,一般不用处理,平均住院2.8 d。术后1周内,脂肪液化者2例,血清肿者1例,无切口感染,无补片感染,无复发。 结论局部麻醉下,单纯腹膜前无张力修补复发性性直疝,安全可靠。     

A prospective randomized study of Lichtenstein open tension-free versus laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal techniques for inguinal hernia repair

Ideal technique for effective inguinal hernia repair is still controversial. Although open tension free mesh techniques of inguinal hernia repair offers good results but the superiority of laparoscopic technique was reported for postoperative pain, discomfort and earlier return back to work. A prospective, randomized study was conducted to compare Lichtenstein open tension free mesh technique with the laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal technique. 62 male patients with Lichtenstein open tension free mesh technique and 61 male patients with totally extraperitoneal technique were operated and compared postoperatively. The patients were followed-up for 24 months with a median of 18 months. In terms of recurrence, postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, complications, hospital stay length, duration of limitation of normal daily activities there were no significant differences between the two groups. Operating time for totally extraperitoneal hernia repair was 16 minutes longer than Lichtenstein open tension free technique. The totally extraperitoneal technique was considerably expensive than Lichtenstein technique, however the duration of returning back to work was shorter in patients repaired with totally extraperitoneal technique. In conclusion in primary inguinal hernia repair Lichtenstein technique should be preferred and the totally extraperitoneal technique should be considered for recurrent and bilateral hernias.     

Comparison of Shouldice and Lichtenstein repair for treatment of primary inguinal hernia

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome following Lichtenstein open mesh repair or Shouldice repair for the surgical treatment of primary unilateral inguinal hernias.

Patients and methods: Patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia who underwent a Shouldice repair (n: 120) and a Lichtenstein open mesh techniques (n: 121) between 1994 and 1998 were evaluated retrospectively. Operation time, hospital stay, postoperative analgesic consumption and complications, return to work and recurrence after surgery were assessed and compared.

Results: The two groups were comparable regarding age, types of hernia and the follow-up interval. There were no significant differences in hospital stay and postoperative complications. The number of recurrences differed significantly between the groups with five in the Shouldice group (4.1%) and one in the Lichtenstein group (0.8%) (p < 0.05). The need of analgesic medication after mesh repair was significantly lower than the Shouldice group (3.9 ±1.4 vs. 4.9 ±1.6 gr. p < 0.05). The operation time was 36±14 min. for Lichtenstein repair and 61 ± 12 min. for Shouldice repair (p < 0.05). The time for return to work was shorter in Lichtenstein group (17 ± 4 days) compared to Shouldice group (25 ±5 days) (p< 0.05).

Conclusion: Shorter operation time, faster return to work, less need to analgesia and lower recurrence rate, shows the superiority of Lichtenstein repair against Shouldice repair in the surgical repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia.     

Moloney Darn Repair Versus Lichtenstein Mesh Hernioplasty for Open Inguinal Hernia Repair

Purpose To compare two tension-free techniques of inguinal hernia repair: the Moloney darn repair (MDR) and Lichtenstein mesh hernioplasty (LMH). Methods The subjects of this study were 651 patients from a total 732 who underwent open inguinal herniorrhaphy at our clinic between January 2000 and January 2006. We evaluated and compared analgesic requirement in the first 24 h, operative time, hospital stay, early postoperative complications, time until return to work, and recurrence, between patients who underwent MDR (group A) and patients who underwent LMH (group B). Results Group B patients required less analgesia in the first 24 h than group A patients. Conversely, the mean operative time and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in group A. Early postoperative complication rates and the time until return to work did not differ significantly between the two groups. During follow-up, recurrences developed in three patients from group A and four from group B. The cost of MDR was significantly less than that of LMH. Conclusions Both MDR and LMH resulted in rapid recovery and low recurrence rates; however, the advantage of the MDR lies in the fact that it does not require mesh, so it is much less expensive.     

自固定补片与缝合补片在Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术修复腹股沟疝的效果对比

目的探讨Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术中应用自固定补片与缝合补片修复腹股沟疝的效果和安全性。 方法选择2017年1月至2018年7月湖北省公安县人民医院收治的腹股沟疝患者112例,均行Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术。采取随机数字表法将患者分为观察组（自固定补片）和对照组（缝合补片）各56例。比较2组患者手术时间、住院费用、术后异物感、术后疼痛[视觉模拟评分法（VAS）]、术后并发症（阴囊积液、切口感染）、复发率等临床指标差异性,观察手术前后生活质量[生活质量综合评定问卷-74（GQOLI-74）]变化情况。 结果观察组患者手术时间短于对照组,住院费用高于对照组（P均<0.05）;观察组患者术后1、3、6、9、12个月的异物感发生率明显低于对照组,术后3 d和1、3、6、12个月的VAS评分均低于对照组（P均<0.05）;2组患者术后阴囊积液、切口感染发生率比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,随访12个月均未出现复发病例;术后3个月,2组患者GQOLI-74各维度评分均较术前升高（P<0.05）,观察组患者躯体功能评分高于对照组（P<0.05）。 结论Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术中应用自固定补片与缝合补片修复腹股沟疝的并发症均较少且无复发情况,使用自固定补片可缩短手术时间,减轻术后疼痛和异物感,有利于改善生活质量,但其住院费用相对较高。     

腹腔镜下不同术式与开放手术疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的疗效

目的比较腹腔镜下经腹腔腹膜前疝修补法（TAPP）、完全腹膜外疝修补法（TEP）与开放式无张力疝修补术（Lichtenstein）治疗腹股沟疝的疗效及安全性。 方法选择2015年3月至2017年8月就诊于松滋市人民医院的150例腹股沟疝患者,按照随机数字表法分为3组,Lichtenstein组、TAPP组、TEP组,各50例。对比3组手术相关指标、并发症及术后6个月复发率,并观察围手术期患者应激反应[皮质醇（Cor）、去甲肾上腺素（NE）、醛固酮（ALD）]变化。 结果3组手术时间、术后并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）;Lichtenstein组术中出血量、术后12 h疼痛数字评分（NRS）、术后下床活动时间及住院时间均比TAPP组和TEP组高,住院费用比TAPP组和TEP组低,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;TEP组术后12 h NRS评分、术后下床活动时间及住院费用比TAPP组低,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;Lichtenstein组术后3 d Cor、NE及ALD水平,复发率比TAPP组和TEP组高,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。 结论Lichtenstein术治疗腹股沟疝操作相对简单、费用低,腹腔镜下TAPP、TEP术具有应激创伤小、疼痛轻、并发症少、复发率低等特点,临床应结合患者具体病情选择适宜的手术修补方式。     

从荟萃分析认识李金斯坦和腹膜前间隙修补术

目的比较李金斯坦（Lichtenstein）修补术与腹膜前间隙修补术的临床效果及并发症情况.方法 通过检索2000年1月至2012年11月PubMed、EMBase、Springer及Cochrane图书馆公开发表的英文文献,对纳入研究的14篇文献中采用Lichtenstein修补术与腹膜前间隙修补术的3 364例患者的复发率、慢性疼痛、局部麻木感、感觉异常、血肿/血清肿、切口感染、睾丸并发症、手术时间进行荟萃分析（meta-analysis）.结果 腹膜前间隙修补术组的复发率低于Lichtenstein组,差异有统计学意义[OR=0.51,95%CI （0.29,0.89）];与Lichtenstein组比较,腹膜前间隙组的手术时间短,差异有统计学意义[MD=-2.78,95%CI （-5.51,-0.006）].其他并发症,包括慢性疼痛、局部麻木感、感觉异常、血肿/血清肿、切口感染、睾丸并发症在二组之间差异无统计学意义.结论 开放腹膜前间隙腹股沟疝修补术是安全有效的修补技术,复发率更低,手术时间更短.