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。

A comparative analysis of the efficacy of open preperitoneal hernia repair and open Lichtenstein method

［Abstract］ Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of open preperitoneal hernia repair with UHS and Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia. Methods 213 inguinal hernia patients from January 2013 to December 2018 were included in the study. Inclusion criteria were complete clinical and follow-up data. The patients underwent open preperitoneal hernia repair with UHS were assigned to UHS group （101 cases） and those received Lichtenstein method were served as Lichtenstein group （112 cases）. The curative effects of the two surgical methods were evaluated on the clinical data of both groups such as operation time， average hospitalization time， treatment cost， postoperative pain and recurrence rate. Results There were no significant differences in the operation time and average hospitalization time between the two groups （P>0.05）. There were no significant differences in complications such as hematoma， scrotal edema. The patients of UHS group had less discomfort， chronic pain and ischemic orchitis than that of Lichtenstein group （P<0.05）. No recurrence was found in UHS group and 5 cases in Lichtenstein group at a follow-up of one year. Conclusion In the present study， the open preperitoneal hernia repair （UHS） was superior to Lichtenstein operation with less chronic pain， discomfort and testicular ischemia.