临床外科杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (4): 361-364.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.2020.04.020

• • 上一篇    下一篇

腹腔镜修补及开放式Onlay修补术在腹壁切口疝中的近期临床效果比较

  

  1. 442000 湖北十堰,湖北医药学院附属人民医院肝胆外科
  • 出版日期:2020-04-20 发布日期:2020-04-20
  • 通讯作者: 魏刚,Email:7841668@qq.com

Comparative study on laparoscopic repair and Onlay repair of recurrent incisional hernia

  1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery,People's Hospital Affiliated to Hubei Medical College,Shiyan 442000, China
  • Online:2020-04-20 Published:2020-04-20

摘要: 目的 比较腹腔镜修补及开放式Onlay修补术在腹壁切口疝的临床效果,探讨腹腔镜修补术在腹壁切口疝的安全性及可行性。 方法 2012年8月~2018年12月我院肝胆外科收治的腹壁切口疝病人52例,其中Onlay组28例,采用Onlay修补法(肌鞘前的修补),腹腔镜组24例,采用腹腔镜修补法,比较两组手术时间、术中失血量、术后疼痛程度、术后并发症、术后恢复情况及炎症指标等。 结果 (1)腹腔镜组的手术时间长于Onlay组,术中失血量少于Onlay修补组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);腹腔镜组术中肠管损伤2例,Onlay组肠管损伤4例,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);(2)腹腔镜组术后12、24、48小时疼痛评分均低于Onlay组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);(3)腹腔镜组术后切口感染2例,不全性肠梗阻1例,共3例(12.50%)。Onlay组术后血清肿1例,切口感染4例,不全性肠梗阻各3例,共8例(28.57%)。两组病人术后均未出现肠漏。腹腔镜修补组并发症的发生率低于 Onlay 组,差异有统计学意义(P< 0.05)。(4)腹腔镜组术后住院时间、下床活动时间短于Onlay 修补组,住院费用高于Onlay组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);(5)两组术后12、24、48 小时血清炎症因子指标(CRP、IL-6、PCT)比较,腹腔镜组均低于Onlay对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(6)术后随访6~48个月,两组复发率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),腔镜组复发率腹(4.17%)略低于 Onlay组(7.14%)。(7)术后随访 6 个月时,观察组各项生活质量评分均高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。 结论 两种手术方式治疗腹壁切口疝均安全、有效。腹腔镜修补术治疗腹壁切口疝具有术后活动早、术后住院时间短、减轻术后炎症反应、改善术后生活质量、减少术后并发症及复发等优点。

关键词: 腹壁切口疝, 腹腔镜, 疝修补术

Abstract: Objective To compare the clinical effects of two surgical methods in abdominal incisional hernia,and to explore the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic repair in abdominal incisional hernia. Methods The clinical data of 52 patients with incisional hernia of abdominal wall admitted to hepatobiliary surgery of our hospital from August 2012 to December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed.Among them,28 cases were treated with Onlay repair(pre-sheath repair)and 24 cases were treated with laparoscopic repair.The operation time,intraoperative blood loss,post-operative pain,post-operative complications and operation were compared and analyzed between the two groups.Posterior recovery and inflammatory markers. Results (1)The operation time of laparoscopic repair group was longer than that of Onlay repair group,and intraoperative blood loss was less than that of Onlay repair group(P<0.05),2 cases of intestinal injury in laparoscopic group and 4 cases of intestinal injury in Onlay group had statistical significance(P<0.05).(2)12,24,48 hours after operation,abdominal cavity.(3)2 cases of incision infection,1 case of incomplete intestinal obstruction and 3 cases of complications(12.50%)in laparoscopic repair group.In Onlay group,there were 1 case of seroma,4 cases of incision infection,3 cases of incomplete intestinal obstruction and 8 cases of complications(28.57%).There was no intestinal fistula after operation in both groups.The incidence of complications in laparoscopic repair group was lower than that in Onlay repair group(P<0.05).(4)The hospital stay and ambulation time in laparoscopic group were shorter than those in Onlay group(P<0.05).The cost of hospitalization was higher than that of Onlay repair group(P<0.05).(5)12,24,48 hours after operation,the serum inflammatory factors(CRP,IL-6,PCT)in laparoscopic group were lower than that in Onlay control group(P<0.05).(6)After 6-48 months follow-up,there was no significant difference in recurrence rate between the two groups(P>0.05),but the recurrence rate in laparoscopic group(4.17%)was slightly lower than that in Onlay group(7.14%).(7)After 6 months follow-up,the quality of life scores of the observation group were higher than those of the control group(P<0.05). Conclusion Both methods are safe and effective in the treatment of incisional hernia of abdominal wall.Laparoscopic repair for abdominal incisional hernia has the advantages of early postoperative activity,short hospital stay and less complications.

Key words: incisional hernia of abdominal wall, laparoscopy, hernioplasty

[1] 王延磊, 戴勇. 腹腔镜直肠癌全直肠系膜切除术质控要点[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(5): 404-406.
[2] 楚振飞, 琚然. 减孔腹腔镜结合悬吊法与传统腹腔镜手术治疗乙状结肠或直肠上段癌的近期疗效对比[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(5): 437-440.
[3] 宋兴超, 路要武, 吴超等. 加速康复外科在全腹腔镜远端胃癌D2根治术中的应用[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(5): 456-459.
[4] 陈波特, 付钰, 邱晓拂等. 3D腹腔镜下顺行腹股沟淋巴结清扫术治疗阴茎癌10例[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(5): 482-484.
[5] 陈小保 李明武 刘思义. 腹腔镜诊治疑似急性阑尾炎的临床价值分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(4): 347-349.
[6] 梁勇 廖波 万波 李春林. 腹腔镜微创手术治疗急性胆囊炎病人的炎性因子含量、临床疗效及安全性的观察[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(4): 350-352.
[7] 刘召洪 王家兴 林龙英 李捷 杨志. 医源性胆道损伤22例体会[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(4): 353-356.
[8] 刘大乐 肖克峰 刘岩峰 刘增钦 黄建生. 腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术对前列腺癌病人的疗效及对转化生长因子-β1、转化生长因子-β3及前列腺特异性抗原水平的影响[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(4): 374-377.
[9] 吴昌耀 李强辉 周维模 龙雪峰 全军利 农振良 张凯. 腹腔镜辅助肛门成形术与后矢状入路肛门成形术手术治疗小儿中高位先天性肛门直肠畸形的疗效[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(4): 387-390.
[10] 任相海 江琪 刁美 徐航 李旭 李龙. 腹腔镜辅助手术与后矢状入路手术治疗中高位一穴肛畸形的疗效比较[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(3): 266-269.
[11] 黄莹, 刘德云. 腹腔镜手术切除对巨大嗜铬细胞瘤的临床疗效分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(2): 168-170.
[12] 曾国祥, 黄修仿 . 腹腔镜微创根治术联合术中腹腔热灌注化疗对老年大肠癌病人血清TGF-β1及Periostin水平的影响[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(2): 177-179.
[13] 罗文, 段鑫, 柯文杰等. 疝修补术后慢性疼痛的临床特征和诊断治疗[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2019, 27(9): 748-750.
[14] 王波:彭美红:江海等. 腹腔镜治疗成人Morgagni疝致肠梗阻一例[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2019, 27(9): 756-757.
[15] 徐延昭, 张缜, 郭强等. 早期肠内免疫营养在全腔镜食管癌根治术后老年病人中的应用[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2019, 27(9): 773-776.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 戴强;徐康;周治军;等. 湖北天门地区泌尿系结石成分及特征分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 789 .
[2] 涂儒鸿;黄昌明. 腹腔镜胃癌根治术淋巴结清扫技巧[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 809 .
[3] 谭海洋;罗良弢;严想元. 肠内营养与肠外营养在腹腔镜胃肠道肿瘤患者术后早期应用的临床研究[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(12): 910 .
[4] 沈攀;刘琳. D1和D2淋巴结清扫术治疗胃癌合并失代偿性肝硬化的效果比较[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(12): 940 .
[5] 侯丁丁 康骅. 近红外荧光在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检中的应用现状[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(9): 719 .
[6] 马连飞;吴浩利;金殷植. 十二指肠间质瘤合并出血一例[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2017, 25(11): 878 .
[7] 叶章群;刘浩然. 泌尿系结石的诊断治疗进展[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2017, 25(2): 85 .
[8] 方洪松;彭昊;周建林等. 小儿陈旧性孟氏骨折初次手术失败后的再手术治疗[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2017, 25(6): 460 .
[9] 杜杰. 腰椎压缩性骨折闭合复位与切开复位的疗效分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2017, 25(8): 588 .
[10] 刘建勇;张维康. 急性肠系膜缺血102例诊治分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2017, 25(9): 665 .