不同手术方式治疗腹股沟疝的效果比较  

Analysis of the different surgical treatment for inguinal hernia

作　　者：尹会义 刘瑾琨[2] 

机构地区：[1]深圳市龙岗区平湖人民医院普通外科,广东省深圳518111 [2]深圳市第二人民医院普通外科

出　　处：《中国基层医药》2012年第1期25-26,共2页Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy

摘　　要：目的探讨不同手术方式治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效。方法腹股沟疝患者98例，随机分为观察组与对照组，每组49例。观察组给予填充式无张力疝修补术，对照组采用传统疝修补术，进行术后随访，比较两组临床疗效及复发情况。结果观察组与对照组有效率、术后疼痛持续时间、手术时间及患者的康复时间分别为93．9％（46／49）与81．6％（40／49）（x2=2．645，P〈0．01），（45．2±7．2）min与（51．4±6．4）min（P〈0．05），（60．8±5．4）min与（71．4±6．7）min（P〈0．05），（2．0±2．1）rain与（4．9±1．8）d（P〈0．05）。两组患者的复发率差异有统计学意义（x2=3．279，P〈0．01）。结论无张力疝修补与传统疝修补术比较更适合腹股沟疝，手术时间及康复时间短，降低腹股沟疝患者复发率，是治疗腹股沟疝的有效手段。Objective To explore the clinical effect of the different surgical treatment for patients with ingui- nal hernia. Methods 98 patients with inguinal hernia were randomly divided into two groups and 49 cases in each group. The observation group was given filling tension-free hernia repair,the control group using traditional hernia repair. The postoperative follow-up were compared in clinical efficacy and recurrence. Results In the observation group and control group, the duration of postoperative pain, surgical time and patient recovery time was 93.9% （46/49） vs 81.6%（40/49）（X2 =2.645,P〈0.01） ,（45.2±7.2）min vs （51.4±6.4） min（P 〈0.05） ,（60.8 ±5.4） rain vs （ 71.4±6. 7 ） rain （ P 〈 0.05 ）, （ 2.0±2. 1 ） d vs （ 4. 9 ± 1.8 ） d （ P 〈 0.05 ）. Postoperative follow-up found that both groups of patients relapse rate was statistically significant（ X2 = 3. 279 ,P 〈 0. 01 ）. Conclusion Two different surgical treatment of inguinal hernia, the tension-free hernia repair compared with the traditional hernia repair was more suit- able for the body, surgery time and recovery time was short, reducing the relapse rate in patients with inguinal hernia, was an effective means of treatment.

关 键 词：疝 腹股沟 疝修补术 综合分析 

分 类 号：R656.2[医药卫生—外科学]