腹腔镜疝气修补术与传统疝修补术的效果对比研究  

Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Hernia Repair and Traditional Hernia Repair

作　　者：齐明[1] 

机构地区：[1]哈尔滨市第一医院普外一科,黑龙江哈尔滨150010

出　　处：《中国继续医学教育》2017年第8期136-137,共2页China Continuing Medical Education

摘　　要：目的对比腹股沟疝行腹膜外腹腔镜疝气修补手术和传统疝修补手术治疗的效果。方法分析本院收治的腹股沟疝86例患者资料,按照手术方法不同分成两组,将行传统疝修补手术治疗37例患者设为对照组,将行腹膜外腹腔镜疝气修补手术治疗49例患者设为观察组,对比两组效果。结果观察组出血总量(23.51±4.23)ml、手术用时(48.68±12.50)min等临床指标均比对照组(46.24±7.15)ml、(63.86±13.68)min更优,且观察组无切口感染出现,且血肿、尿潴留均出现1例(2.04%),总并发症率为4.08%(2/49);观察组血肿、尿潴留、切口感染分别出现3例(8.11%)、4例(10.81%)、2例(5.41%),总并发症率为24.32%(9/37),观察组总并发症率较对照组低(P<0.05)。结论腹股沟疝者行腹膜外腹腔镜疝气修补手术治疗效果满意。Objective Comparison of retroperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair surgery and traditional hernia repair surgery. Methods Analysis of the hospital admitted to the inguinal hernia 86 cases of patients, according to different surgical methods divided into two groups, the traditional hernia repair surgery treatment of 37 patients as a control group, the peritoneal laparoscopic hernia repair surgery for 49 patients The observation group was compared with the two groups. Results The total bleeding in the observation group （23.51 ± 4.23） ml,（48.68±12.50） min and other clinical indicators were compared with the control group （46.24 ± 7.15） ml, （63.86 ± 13.68） min excellent, and the observation group no incision infection, and hematoma, urinary retention were found in 1 case （2.04%）, The total complication rate was 4.08% （2/49）. In the observation group, 3 cases （8.11%）, 4 cases （10.81%）, 2 cases （5.41%）, total complications Rate was 24.32% （9/37）. The overall complication rate in the observation group was lower than that in the control group （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Inguinal hemia with extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair surgery satisfactory results can be clinically promoted.

关 键 词：腹股沟疝 疝修补手术 腹腔镜 并发症 

分 类 号：R656.2[医药卫生—外科学]