全腹膜外疝修补术中两种疝囊处理方法应用效果的对比研究

目的:对比全腹膜外疝修补术中两种疝囊处理方法的应用效果。方法:选择2019年11月至2021年10月收治的94例腹股沟疝患者，按随机数字表法将其分为剥离组(完全剥离疝囊)与横断组(横断疝囊),每组47例，两组均行全腹膜外疝修补术。对比分析两组围手术期指标、疼痛程度、生活质量及并发症发生情况。结果:横断组术中出血量少于剥离组[(12.32±4.11)mL vs.(15.98±4.08)mL],手术时间[(54.13±14.76)min vs.(66.39±18.52)min]、下床活动时间[(1.45±0.50)d vs.(1.97±0.63)d]、住院时间[(5.71±1.24)d vs.(6.37±1.42)d]短于剥离组，术后24 h疼痛轻于剥离组，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组术后健康调查简表(SF-36)评分及并发症总发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:相较完全剥离疝囊，全腹膜外疝修补术中横断疝囊具有术中出血少、手术时间短、术后疼痛轻的优势，患者可早期下床活动，是全腹膜外疝修补术中处理疝囊较为有效的方法。     

腹腔镜全腹膜外疝修补术治疗男性双侧腹股沟斜疝的临床研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜全腹膜外疝修补术(totally extraperitoneal,TEP)治疗男性双侧腹股沟斜疝的临床疗效。方法:回顾分析2010年1月至2012年6月收治的162例双侧腹股沟斜疝男性患者的临床资料,分别行TEP(腔镜组)与Lichtenstein无张力疝修补术(开放组)。对比两组患者手术时间、住院时间、恢复正常活动时间、术后并发症等。结果:与开放组相比,腔镜组患者年龄、BMI、术前ASA分级、疝分型及随访时间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但手术时间较长[(54.0±6.4)min vs.(45.0±4.2)min,P<0.001],术后恢复正常活动时间显著缩短[(10.0±1.6)d vs.(12.2±2.0)d,P=0.001],并发症发生率显著降低(7.1%vs.18.9%,P=0.046),术后住院时间两组差异无统计学意义[(4.4±1.3)d vs.(4.9±1.5)d,P=0.311]。结论:与开放手术相比,TEP治疗男性双侧腹股沟斜疝具有术后康复快、并发症发生率低的优点,值得推广。     

腹腔镜与开放手术治疗老年腹壁切口疝的临床研究

目的 探讨开放与腹腔镜切口疝修补术对老年腹壁切口疝患者的临床疗效.方法 分析60周岁以上腹壁切口疝患者52例的临床资料,其中开放组24例,腹腔镜组28例.结果 两组在手术时间、切口感染、血清肿方面比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),但腹腔镜组术中出血量[(9±4) ml]、住院时间[(8±3)d]、术后疼痛7例(25.01％),明显优于开放组(P＜0.05).两组均无患者死亡,随访3个月至2年,开放组复发3例,腹腔镜组未见复发.结论 两种治疗方法同样安全有效,但腹腔镜切口疝修补术具有创伤小、疼痛轻、恢复快、住院时间短等优点.     

全腹膜外腹腔镜疝修补术与开放手术治疗女性腹股沟疝的比较

目的 探讨全腹膜外腹腔镜疝修补术(totally extraperitoneal repair, TEP)治疗女性腹股沟疝的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析我院2016年1月～2022年5月105例女性腹膜前疝修补术的临床资料，其中63例行TEP(腔镜组),42例行经腹股沟前入路腹膜前疝修补术(开放组),比较2组手术指标和随访结果。结果 2组均顺利完成手术，腔镜组6例术中探查发现对侧隐匿疝，同期修补。双侧疝腔镜组手术时间较开放组短[(102.7±14.6)min (n=30) vs.(113.4±12.8)min(n=13),t=-2.285,P=0.028],单侧疝手术时间2组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。腔镜组术后24 h疼痛视觉模拟评分(Visual Analogue Scale, VAS)、术后住院时间、异物感发生率优于开放组[(2.2±0.4)分vs.(2.6±0.7)分，t=-3.481,P=0.001;(7.1±2.4)d vs.(10.7±3.5)d,t=-5.841,P=0.000;7.9%(5/63) vs. 23.8%(10/42),χ²...     

经腹腹膜前疝修补术与疝环填充式无张力疝修补术的临床疗效对比

目的探讨经腹腹膜前疝修补术(TAPP)与疝环填充式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2011年6月至2013年9月,山西省人民医院84例腹股沟疝患者的临床资料,其中行疝环填充式无张力疝修补术(A组)38例,TAPP(B组)46例,手术由同组医师完成,随访时间为9~36个月,平均随访时间(24±9)个月,对比二组手术时间、术后住院时间、术中出血量、复发率及总并发症的发生率情况。结果手术时间A组明显低于B组,差异有统计学意义[(36±14)min vs(75±27)min,P=0.00036];术后住院时间B组少于A组,差异有统计学意义[(1.7±1.0)d vs(1.8±1.2)d,P=0.00078];A组和B组术中出血量比较,差异无统计学意义[(12±4)ml vs(13±4)ml,P0.05];二组患者在术后随访期内无复发;A组和B组并发症的发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(10.52%vs 10.86%,P0.05)。结论两种术式均安全有效,选择适合各自术式特点的患者,均可使患者取得创伤小、恢复快、术后复发率低、并发症少的疗效。     

腹腔镜与开放式无张力修补术治疗腹壁疝临床对比研究

目的 评价腹腔镜腹壁疝修补术（LVHR）的安全性与有效性。方法 对2007年1月至2008年8月间上海交通大学医学院附属瑞金医院接受无张力修补术的68例腹壁疝病人（缺损长径≤20cm）的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果 LVHR 31例,开放式腹壁疝修补术（OVHR）37例。随访时间1～21个月（中位时间11个月）。LVHR与OVHR在年龄、性别比、BMI和疝缺损大小上差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。LVHR与OVHR的平均手术时间分别为（60.5±17.7）min和（75.5±30.3）min（P＝0.017）,平均术后住院天数分别为（6.2±2.5）d和（9.6±8.0）d（P＝0.026）,术后2周内恢复非限制性活动人数分别为96.8%和78.4%（P=0.026）,差异均有统计学意义。两组术后第1天的疼痛评分VAS分别为5.6±1.2和6.3±1.3,差异有统计学意义（P＝0.018）,术后1周和1个月的VAS差异无统计学意义（P＝0.932,P＝0.056）。两组总并发症发生率分别为19.4%和24.3%（P =0.623）,复发率分别为3.2%和5.6%（P =1.000）,差异无统计学意义。两组的住院总费用分别为（18334±5336）元和（9508±9222）元,差异有统计学意义（P =0.000）。结论 LVHR对于缺损长径<20cm的腹壁疝是安全有效的。     

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前横断疝囊法治疗Ⅲ型腹股沟疝

目的:探讨经腹腹膜前腹腔镜疝修补术中采用横断疝囊法治疗Ⅲ型腹股沟疝的手术方法及优缺点。方法:将2010年3月至2014年8月收治的120例成人Ⅲ型腹股沟疝患者随机分为两组,其中63例在腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术中横断疝囊,57例行腹腔镜经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术,比较两组手术时间、肛门排气时间、术中出血量、住院时间、术后并发症(肩部疼痛、会阴疼痛、恶心呕吐、血清肿、阴囊水肿)及2年随访情况(慢性疼痛、鞘膜积液、疝复发等指标)。结果:两组均顺利完成手术,两组患者手术时间[(43.5±7.3)min vs.(55.2±6.6)min]差异有统计学意义(t=5.55,P=0.00),术中出血量、住院时间、术后并发症及随访情况差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:采用腹腔镜经腹腹膜前横断疝囊的手术方法治疗Ⅲ型腹股沟疝可降低手术操作难度,缩短手术时间,疗效安全、可靠,值得推广应用。     

腹腔镜与开放式无张力疝修补术的疗效探讨

目的:评价不同无张力疝修补术的治疗效果。方法:回顾行开放式无张力疝修补术和腹腔镜疝修补术162例的临床资料,对比两组手术时间、住院时间和短期内复发的情况。结果:腹腔镜组手术时间与开放组相比无显著差异(51.46±24.76)m in vs.(48.75±12.14)m in(P>0.05),住院时间无显著差异;术后6个月腹腔镜组1例复发,开放组6例复发。结论:腹腔镜疝修补术与开放式无张力疝修补手术时间、住院时间和术后复发两组无统计学差异。     

腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术与开放式无张力疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的临床对比研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术与开放式无张力疝修补术的临床疗效。方法:回顾分析2012年8月至2015年2月诊治的128例成人腹股沟疝患者的临床资料,其中76例行腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(腹腔镜组),52例行开放式无张力疝修补术(开放组)。结果:腹腔镜组手术时间长于开放组,住院费用高于开放组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);住院时间、恢复肠道功能时间腹腔镜组优于开放组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后并发症发生率腹腔镜组为6.6%(5/76),开放组为19.2%(10/52),两组相比差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者术后均无复发。结论:腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术虽然手术时间长,住院费用高,但术后康复快,并发症少,临床疗效显著。     

杂交修补技术与腹腔镜腹腔内补片植入术治疗腹壁切口疝的疗效比较

目的:探讨杂交修补技术与腹腔镜腹腔内补片植入术(intraperitoneal onlay mesh,IPOM)治疗腹壁切口疝的疗效。方法:回顾分析2010年1月至2014年1月收治的36例腹壁切口疝患者的临床资料,其中16例行杂交修补技术,20例行腹腔镜IPOM。结果:36例手术均获成功。IPOM组出现1例血肿,1例肠漏,并发症发生率为10%(2/20)。杂交修补技术组均未出现感染、血肿、肠漏及术后慢性疼痛等并发症。与腹腔镜IPOM组相比,杂交修补技术组出血量[(68.99±23.82)ml vs.(67.22±26.59)ml,t=0.140,P=0.890]、下床活动时间[(2.11±0.78)d vs.(2.00±0.71)d,t=0.316,P=0.756]、住院时间[(8.44±2.01)d vs.(8.22±2.49)d,t=0.209,P=0.837]、术后患者VAS评分[术后第1天:(5.89±1.76)vs.(5.78±1.48)分,t=-0.145,P=0.887;术后第3天:(3.76±0.87)vs.(3.11±0.93)分,t=-1.313,P=0.208]及需要的止痛剂剂量[(4.00±1.41)支vs.(4.11±1.54)支,t=-0.160,P=0.875]差异均无统计学意义,但手术时间[(189.44±41.50)min vs.(247.78±40.55)min,t=-3.016,P=0.008]明显减少。结论:与腹腔镜IPOM相比,杂交修补技术治疗腹壁切口疝同样安全、有效,且能缩短手术时间,近期效果显著,值得推广。     

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: pros and cons compared with open hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyse the surgical techniques, perioperative complications, and recurrence rate of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR), in comparison with the open ventral hernia repair (OVHR), based on the international literature. METHODS: A Medline search of the English literature was performed using the term "laparoscopic ventral hernia repair." Further articles were found by cross-referencing the references of each main article. RESULTS: Current literature on the topic suggests that LVHR is a safe alternative to the open method with the main advantages being minimal postoperative pain, a shorter convalescence period, and better cosmetic results. Main complications after the laparoscopic approach, such as incidental enterotomy, protracted pain, postoperative seroma, or mesh infection occur at an acceptable rate. Furthermore, most articles favor LVHR versus OVHR in terms of recurrence rate. CONCLUSIONS: Although further randomized studies are needed to draw safe conclusions in terms of complications and recurrence, LVHR is fast becoming the standard approach in the repair of abdominal wall hernias.     

��ǻ���뿪��ʽ�������޲������Ƹ������ٴ��Ա��о�

??Clinical control study of laparoscopic procedures vs open mesh repair for ventral hernias LI Jian-wen, XIE Yi-sheng, QIU Ming-yuan, et al. Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Minimally Invasive Surgery Centre, Shanghai 200025, China. Correspongding anthor: MAO Zhi-hai, E-mail:zhihaimao@163.com Abstract Objective To estimate the laparoscopic ventral hernia repair(LVHR), focusing on the safety and efficiency of the operations. Methods The clinical data of 68 patients with ventral hernias (defect≤20cm) performed hernia reparing between January 2007 and August 2008 at Ruijin Hospital of Shanghai Jiao Tong University were analyzed retrospectively. Results Thirty-one patients underwent laparoscopic repair (LVHR), and 37 patients underwent open mesh repair (OVHR). The clinical outcome was determined by a median follow-up of 11 months(1~21 months) for the two groups. No significant differences were noticed between the two groups in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and hernia size. The mean operative time was (60.5±17.7)min for LVHR patients and (75.5±30.3)min for OVHR patients (P??0.017). The mean postoperative hospital stay was (6.2±2.5)d for LVHR patients and (9.6±8.0)d for OVHR patients (P??0.026). 96.8% of patients (30/31) were able to return to usual activity in 2 weeks for LVHR and 78.4% of patients (29/37) for OVHR (P=0.026). LVHR patients felt less pain in the first day after operation (P??0.018), and there were no significant differences in visual-analogue pain scores between the two groups afterward. Complications occurred in 19.4 % of LVHR patients and 24.3 % of OVHR patients (P =0.623) with a recurrence rate of 3.2% in LVHR and 5.6% in OVHR patients (P =1.000). The mean cost was (18334±5336) yuan RMB for LVHR patients and (9508±9222) yuan RMB for OVHR patients (P=0.000). Conclusion The short-term results indicate that laparoscopic technique is safe and effective for ventral hernia repairing with hernia defect less than 20cm.     

Current Trends in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair

Background and Objectives:

The purpose of this study was to analyze the surgical technique, postoperative complications, and possible recurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) in comparison with open ventral hernia repair (OVHR), based on the international literature.

Database:

A Medline search of the current English literature was performed using the terms laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and incisional hernia repair.

Conclusions:

LVHR is a safe alternative to the open method, with the main advantages being minimal postoperative pain, shorter recovery, and decreased wound and mesh infections. Incidental enterotomy can be avoided by using a meticulous technique and sharp dissection to avoid thermal injury.     

Laparoscopic versus open hernia repair: outcomes and sociodemographic utilization results from the nationwide inpatient sample

Introduction

The differences and advantages of laparoscopic (LVHR) and open ventral hernia repair (OVHR) have been debated since laparoscopic hernia repair was first described. The purpose of this study is to compare LVHR and OVHR with mesh in the United States using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS).

Methods

The NIS, a representative sample of approximately 20 % of all inpatient encounters in the United States, was queried for all ventral hernia repairs with graft or prosthesis in 2009 using ICD-9-CM codes. The patients were stratified into LVHR and OVHR groups. Sociodemographic data, comorbidities, complications, and outcomes were compared between groups.

Results

A total of 18,223 cases were documented in the NIS sample after inclusion and exclusion criteria were met. LVHR was performed in 27.6 % of cases. There were no statistically significant differences in gender or mean income by zip code of residence. Mean age (58.8 years in open group vs. 58.1 years, p = 0.014) and mean Charlson score (0.97 vs. 0.77, p < 0.0001) differed significantly between groups. OVHR more often was associated with emergent admissions (21.7 vs. 15.2 %, p < 0.0001). There were significant differences comparing outcomes between groups: complication rate (OVHR: 8.24 vs. LVHR: 3.97 %, p < 0.0001), average length of stay (5.2 vs. 3.5 days, p < 0.0001), total charge ($45,708 vs. $35,947, p < 0.0001), frequency of routine discharge (80.8 vs. 91.1 %, p < 0.0001), and mortality rate (0.88 vs. 0.36 %, p = 0.0002). After controlling for confounding variables with multivariate regression, all outcomes remained significant between groups.

Conclusions

Patients who have undergone LVHR with mesh had fewer complications, shorter length of stay, lower hospital charges, more frequent routine discharge, and decreased mortality compared with those who received open repair. Patient comorbidities, selection bias, and emergency operations may limit the number of patients who receive laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Regionalization studies may better illuminate the low rates of laparoscopic surgery.     

腹腔镜切口疝修补术与开放式切口疝修补术的比较研究

目的：比较腹腔镜切口疝修补术（LVHR）与开放切口疝修补术（OVHR）的临床疗效。方法：总结我院2005年1月-2011年1月治疗的腹壁切口疝（VIH）72例患者的临床资料,其中OVHR组32例,LVHR组40例。结果：OVHR组手术时间60～145min,平均手术时间（90±35）min;术中出血25～200mL,平均（95±15）mL;住院时间4～35d,平均（7．5±5．8）d,术区感染3例。LVHR组手术时间35～135min,平均手术时间（82±32）min;术中出血15～160mL,平均（854-12）mL,术区感染0例;住院时间3～8d,平均（5．5±1．6）d。患者随访3个月～5年,OVHR组复发2例（6．3％）,LVHR组复发3例（7．5％）。结论：LVHR同OVHR同样安全有效,但LVHR可明显降低切口感染并发症、减少术后疼痛、缩短术后住院时间。     

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。     

Tailoring surgical approach for elective ventral hernia repair based on obesity and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program outcomes

Background

Obesity's influence on postoperative complications in either laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) or open ventral hernia repair (OVHR) has yet to be defined. Although 30-day postoperative complications increase with higher body mass index (BMI), we propose LVHR minimizes surgical site infections (SSIs) and surgical site occurrences (SSOs) for given BMI categories.

Methods

Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2009 to 2012) for patients aged 18 years or more undergoing elective ventral hernia repair. Exclusion criteria included immunosuppression, disseminated malignancy, advanced liver disease, or pregnancy. Patients were stratified by BMI (20 to 25, 25 to 30, 30 to 35, 35 to 40, and >40 kg/m²), and 30-day SSOs evaluated across BMI groups for LVHR vs OVHR.

Results

A total of 106,968 patients met inclusion criteria, with 60% patients obese. LVHR decreased SSO for all patients (odds ratio, .4; confidence interval, .19 to .60). Obesity classes I/II/III have increased odds of superficial SSI, deep SSI, and dehiscence for OVHR compared with LVHR. Only obesity class III has increased odds of organ space SSI and reoperation for OVHR vs LVHR (P < .05).

Conclusions

Obese patients are over-represented in VHRs. Thirty-day postoperative wound complications increase with higher BMI. LVHR minimizes both SSIs and SSOs, especially in higher obesity classes.     

Pooled data analysis of laparoscopic vs. open ventral hernia repair: 14 years of patient data accrual

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze the published perioperative results and outcomes of laparoscopic (LVHR) and open (OVHR) ventral hernia repair focusing on complications and hernia recurrences. METHODS: Data were compiled from all English-language reports of LVHR published from 1996 through January 2006. Series with fewer than 20 cases of LVHR, insufficient details of complications, or those part of a larger series were excluded. Data were derived from 31 reports of LVHR alone (unpaired studies) and 14 that directly compared LVHR to OVHR (paired studies). Chi-squared analysis, Fisher's exact test, and two-tailed t-test analysis were used. RESULTS: Forty-five published series were included, representing 5340 patients (4582 LVHR, 758 OVHR). In the pooled analysis (combined paired and unpaired studies), LVHR was associated with significantly fewer wound complications (3.8% vs. 16.8%, p < 0.0001), total complications (22.7% vs. 41.7%, p < 0.0001), hernia recurrences (4.3% vs. 12.1%, p < 0.0001), and a shorter length of stay (2.4 vs. 4.3 days, p = 0.0004). These outcomes maintained statistical significance when only the paired studies were analyzed. In the pooled analysis, LVHR was associated with fewer gastrointestinal (2.6% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.0001), pulmonary (0.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.0013), and miscellaneous (0.7% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.0011) complications, but a higher incidence of prolonged procedure site pain (1.96% vs. 0.92%, p = 0.0469); none of these outcomes was significant in the paired study analysis. No differences in cardiac, neurologic, septic, genitourinary, or thromboembolic complications were found. The mortality rate was 0.13% with LVHR and 0.26% with OVHR (p = NS). Trends toward larger hernia defects and larger mesh sizes were observed for LVHR. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature indicates fewer wound-related and overall complications and a lower rate of hernia recurrence for LVHR compared to OVHR. Further controlled trials are necessary to substantiate these findings and to assess the health care economic impact of this approach.