吳律昌
[摘要] 目的 研究比較腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)(TAPP)與開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療成人腹股溝疝的臨床療效。 方法 隨機(jī)選取該院2015年1月—2016年6月間收治的100例腹股溝疝患者作為研究對(duì)象,隨機(jī)分為開放組和TAPP組,各50例。開放組患者采用開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療,TAPP組采用腹腔鏡經(jīng)腹腹膜前補(bǔ)片植入術(shù)治療,比較兩組患者的手術(shù)時(shí)間、下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間、痛感持續(xù)時(shí)間、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間、術(shù)中出血量、住院費(fèi)用,以及術(shù)后并發(fā)癥、復(fù)發(fā)率等情況。結(jié)果 ①TAPP組下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間、痛感持續(xù)時(shí)間、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間明顯短于開放組,術(shù)中出血量明顯少于開放組;手術(shù)時(shí)間明顯長于開放組,住院費(fèi)用亦顯著高于開放組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(t=4.312、4.429、9.284、5.374、3.748、12.512,P<0.05)。②TAPP組患者中切口感染、切口積液、腹股溝區(qū)疼痛者發(fā)生率明顯低于開放組(χ2=3.374、3.284、4.768,P<0.05);兩組患者尿潴留、陰囊血腫等并發(fā)癥組間比較差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)。TAPP組并發(fā)癥總發(fā)生率為26.0%,顯著低于開放組58.0%,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ2=3.446,P<0.05)。③兩組均未有患者復(fù)發(fā),差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)。 結(jié)論 腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)更加安全可靠,患者恢復(fù)更快,療效更佳,但缺點(diǎn)在于手術(shù)時(shí)間長,治療成本更高,兩種術(shù)式各有優(yōu)勢(shì),患者可根據(jù)情況選擇。
[關(guān)鍵詞] 腹腔鏡;開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù);腹股溝疝
[中圖分類號(hào)] R5 [文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識(shí)碼] A [文章編號(hào)] 1674-0742(2018)02(c)-0101-03
Laparoscopic Herniorrhaphy Compared with Open Methods of Groin Hernia Repair in Adult
WU Lyu-chang
Department of General Surgery,Youyang Zhongshan Hospital, Chongqing, 409800 China
[Abstract] Objective This paper tries to analyze and compare the clinical effect of TAPP and open methods of groin hernia repair in adults. Methods 100 patients with inguinal hernia treated in this hospital from January 2015 to January 2016 in June were random selection divided into the open group and the TAPP group with each 50 cases. The open group were treated in tension-free hernioplasty treatment, and the TAPP group were treated in laparoscopic hernia repair treatment. It aims to compare the operation time, ambulation time, pain duration, postoperative hospitalization time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization cost, postoperative complications, and recurrence rate etc. of the two groups. Results ①The ambulation time, pain duration, and postoperative hospitalization time in TAPP group were significantly shorter than the open group, and the amount of bleeding was significantly less than that in the open surgery group; while operation time was significantly longer than the open group, the hospitalization expenses was significantly higher than that of the open group, the difference was statistically significant(t=4.312, 4.429, 9.284, 5.374, 3.748, 12.512,P<0.05). ②The infection of incision, incision effusion, groin pain incidence in TAPP group was significantly lower than that of the open group(χ2=3.374, 3.284, 4.768,P<0.05); no significant difference was found between the two groups of patients with urinary retention, scrotal hematoma and other complications between groups(P>0.05). The complication rate of TAPP group was 26.0%, which was significantly lower than that of the open group(58.0%),the difference was statistically significant(χ2=3.446,P<0.05).③There was no recurrence in the two groups for recurrence rate. The difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05). Conclusion Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy repair is more safe and reliable. Patients could recover faster, but the disadvantage is the longer operation time and higher treatment cost. Two kinds of surgical methods have their own advantages, and patients can choose according to the situation.
[Key words] Laparoscopy; Open tension-free hernia repair; Inguinal hernia
腹股溝疝是指腹腔內(nèi)臟器通過腹股溝區(qū)的缺損向體表突出所形成的疝,發(fā)病率約為1.5%[1]。流行病學(xué)統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果顯示,我國每年約有200萬人接受腹股溝疝手術(shù)治療[2]。開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)是目前臨床已經(jīng)完全成熟而常用的疝修補(bǔ)術(shù),基本代替了傳統(tǒng)的手術(shù)。近年來,隨著腹腔鏡技術(shù)的發(fā)展,腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)也開始應(yīng)用于臨床,因創(chuàng)傷小、術(shù)后痛感輕、術(shù)后恢復(fù)快以及美觀性的優(yōu)勢(shì)獲得多數(shù)醫(yī)師和患者的肯定,但也因手術(shù)成本高受到一定限制。隨機(jī)選取該院2015年1月—2016年6月間收治的100例腹股溝疝患者為研究對(duì)象,以比較兩種術(shù)式效果差異,現(xiàn)報(bào)道如下。
1 資料與方法
1.1 一般資料
隨機(jī)選取該院收治的100例腹股溝疝患者作為研究對(duì)象,分為TAPP組和開放組。TAPP組50例,男42例,女8例,平均年齡(55.8±9.3)歲,平均病史(43.6±10.6)個(gè)月;其中直疝13例,斜疝37例。開放組50例,男41例,女9例,平均年齡(57.4±10.4)歲,平均病史(44.7±11.3)月;其中直疝15例,斜疝35例。兩組性別比例、年齡、病史、腹股溝疝類型和分型等差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)。病例納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[3]:①符合成人腹股溝疝的診斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn);②年齡在18~80歲之間;③所有患者均對(duì)該研究知情并簽署知情同意書;④經(jīng)該院倫理委員會(huì)批準(zhǔn)通過。病例排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn):①合并心肝腎等臟器功能衰竭者;②合并嚴(yán)重認(rèn)知功能障礙者;③哺乳期或妊娠期婦女。
1.2 方法
開放組患者采用開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療[4]:所有患者取平臥位,行局麻或硬膜外麻醉,術(shù)前留置導(dǎo)尿管。于患處打開一6 cm左右的斜形切口,逐層分離組織,游離精索,找到疝囊,并從精索內(nèi)分離至疝囊頸,結(jié)扎。于精索后方置于聚丙烯補(bǔ)片,固定于恥骨結(jié)節(jié)、腹內(nèi)斜肌、聯(lián)合腱等組織,最后逐層縫合皮下組織和皮膚,術(shù)后加壓24 h。
TAPP組采用腹腔鏡經(jīng)腹腹膜前補(bǔ)片植入術(shù)治療[5]:所有患者全麻下氣管插管,留置導(dǎo)尿管,術(shù)前30 min靜脈注射抗生素,取頭低足高臥位,于肚臍下緣作1.5 cm切口,逐層切開皮下組織,在后鞘前方鈍性分離,建立氣腹,維持15 mmHg腹壓,置入腹腔鏡,并于恥骨與肚臍連線中上及中下1/3處置入5 mm Trocar,分離暴露韌帶和恥骨結(jié)節(jié)等結(jié)構(gòu),斜疝者從精索下撕離疝囊,直疝者剝離疝囊和腹壁。置入聚丙烯補(bǔ)片,并在合適位置釘入疝釘4~5枚。排氣,取出腹腔鏡,縫合傷口。
術(shù)中術(shù)后觀察指標(biāo)如下:手術(shù)時(shí)間、下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間、痛感持續(xù)時(shí)間、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間、術(shù)中出血量、住院費(fèi)用,以及術(shù)后并發(fā)癥等。術(shù)后隨訪半年,統(tǒng)計(jì)復(fù)發(fā)率。
1.3 統(tǒng)計(jì)方法
采用SPSS 13.0統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)軟件進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)處理。計(jì)量資料以(x±s)表示,采用t檢驗(yàn),計(jì)數(shù)資料以率(%)表示,采用χ2檢驗(yàn)。P<0.05為差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。
2 結(jié)果
2.1 手術(shù)情況和治療費(fèi)用比較
組間比較,TAPP組下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間、痛感持續(xù)時(shí)間、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間明顯短于開放組,術(shù)中出血量明顯少于開放組;手術(shù)時(shí)間明顯長于開放組,住院費(fèi)用亦顯著高于開放組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(t=4.312、4.429、9.284、5.374、 3.748、12.512,P<0.05)。見表1。
2.2 并發(fā)癥比較
經(jīng)比較,TAPP組患者中切口感染、切口積液、腹股溝區(qū)疼痛者發(fā)生率明顯低于開放組(χ2=3.374、3.284、4.768,P<0.05);兩組患者尿潴留、陰囊血腫等并發(fā)癥組間比較差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ2=0.242、0.401,P>0.05)。TAPP組并發(fā)癥總發(fā)生率為26.0%,顯著低于開放組58.0%,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ2=3.446,P<0.05),見表2。
2.3 術(shù)后復(fù)發(fā)情況
兩組患者半年內(nèi)均未有患者復(fù)發(fā),差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)。
3 討論
疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)的目的在于加強(qiáng)薄弱腹壁的強(qiáng)度并堵塞腹腔內(nèi)臟突出的途徑,由于成人患者體內(nèi)都存在不同程度的腹壁薄弱或缺損,因此修補(bǔ)或加強(qiáng)薄弱部位是手術(shù)的關(guān)鍵[6]。開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)的引入給疝的治療帶來了很大變化。該方法主要通過游離精索后置入聚丙烯補(bǔ)片以加強(qiáng)后壁,所引入的生物材料可隨意裁剪,組織相容性好,易消毒,無需取自體組織,較傳統(tǒng)手術(shù)大大減少并發(fā)癥和復(fù)發(fā)率[7]。而腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)是經(jīng)腹腔鏡建立一個(gè)可視的可操作空間完成腹壁修補(bǔ),其手術(shù)切口小,術(shù)后疼痛輕,恢復(fù)快,優(yōu)勢(shì)明顯。另外腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)(TAPP)術(shù)中易及時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)同側(cè)隱匿性疝或者合并對(duì)側(cè)疝,利于準(zhǔn)確診斷病情。但腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)需全身麻醉,且對(duì)設(shè)備要求高,因此治療費(fèi)用也高,推廣也受到一定限制。
李俊江[8]研究指出,腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率僅為30%,明顯低于開放式修補(bǔ)術(shù)的54%,并且前者在VAS評(píng)分、術(shù)后下床時(shí)間及復(fù)發(fā)率方面均占有明顯優(yōu)勢(shì)。該文研究結(jié)果顯示,TAPP組患者下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間、痛感持續(xù)時(shí)間、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間明顯短于開放組,術(shù)中出血量明顯少于開放組;手術(shù)時(shí)間明顯長于開放組,住院費(fèi)用亦顯著高于開放組(t=4.312、4.429、9.284、5.374、3.748、 12.512,P<0.05)。相對(duì)于開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù),腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)手術(shù)恢復(fù)更快,出血量少,對(duì)患者傷害小,值得臨床應(yīng)用,但手術(shù)時(shí)間長,住院費(fèi)用也相對(duì)高,患者可酌情選擇。同時(shí),隨訪結(jié)果顯示,TAPP組患者中切口感染、切口積液、腹股溝區(qū)疼痛者發(fā)生率明顯低于開放組(χ2=3.374、3.284、4.768,P<0.05);兩組患者尿潴留、陰囊血腫等并發(fā)癥組間比較差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)。TAPP組并發(fā)癥總發(fā)生率為26.0%,顯著低于開放組58.0%,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ2=3.446,P<0.05)。表明腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率更低,安全性更佳。另外,腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)和開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)復(fù)發(fā)率無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異??傮w而言,TAPP修補(bǔ)術(shù)更加安全、傷害更小、患者恢復(fù)更快,療效更佳,當(dāng)然成本更高,患者可根據(jù)情況選擇。與李俊江[8]研究結(jié)論基本吻合。
綜上所述,腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)術(shù)中傷害更小、術(shù)后并發(fā)癥更少、患者恢復(fù)更快,總體而言療效更佳,其缺點(diǎn)在于手術(shù)時(shí)間長,治療成本更高,兩種術(shù)式各有優(yōu)勢(shì),患者可根據(jù)情況選擇。
[參考文獻(xiàn)]
[1] 萬新時(shí).腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)與開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療成人腹股溝疝的臨床效果比較[J].吉林醫(yī)學(xué),2015(16):3557-3558.
[2] 許斌.腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)與開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療成人腹股溝疝的臨床療效比較觀察[J].中國實(shí)用醫(yī)藥,2016(1):88-89.
[3] 張朋,牛兆健,屈彬,等.探討腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)與開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療成人腹股溝疝的臨床療效[J].吉林醫(yī)學(xué),2014(19):4203-4204.
[4] 汪文峰.腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)與開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療成人腹股溝疝的臨床比較[J].醫(yī)藥前沿,2016,6(20):157-158.
[5] 嚴(yán)聰.腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)與開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療成人腹股溝疝的臨床對(duì)比[J].中外醫(yī)學(xué)研究,2013(18):113.
[6] 江雪峰.腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)與開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療成人腹股溝疝的臨床比較[J].吉林醫(yī)學(xué),2014(23):5185.
[7] 巖炳.腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)與開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療成人腹股溝疝的臨床對(duì)比[J].中國衛(wèi)生產(chǎn)業(yè),2013(19):111,113.
[8] 李俊江.腹腔鏡疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)(TAPP)與開放式無張力疝修補(bǔ)術(shù)治療成人腹股溝疝的臨床療效觀察[J].現(xiàn)代診斷與治療,2017,28(15):2852-2853.
(收稿日期:2017-11-22)