切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版) ›› 2024, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (04) : 445 -447. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2024.04.025

论著

TAPP和TEP治疗腹股沟疝临床效果比较
宋连奎1,(), 王建成1, 王竹林1, 王春生1, 木洪伟1, 季洪阁2   
  1. 1. 061500 河北沧州,沧州市第四医院普通外科
    2. 061000 河北沧州,沧州市中西医结合医院胃肠外一科
  • 收稿日期:2023-07-31 出版日期:2024-08-26
  • 通信作者: 宋连奎

Comparison of clinical effects of TAPP and TEP in the treatment of inguinal hernia

Liankui Song1,(), Jiancheng Wang1, Zhulin Wang1, Chunsheng Wang1, Hongwei Mu1, Hongge Ji2   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, The Fourth Hospital of Cangzhou, Cangzhou Hebei Province 061500, China
    2. Department of Gastroenterology, Cangzhou Hospital of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, Cangzhou Hebei Province 061000, China
  • Received:2023-07-31 Published:2024-08-26
  • Corresponding author: Liankui Song
引用本文:

宋连奎, 王建成, 王竹林, 王春生, 木洪伟, 季洪阁. TAPP和TEP治疗腹股沟疝临床效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 445-447.

Liankui Song, Jiancheng Wang, Zhulin Wang, Chunsheng Wang, Hongwei Mu, Hongge Ji. Comparison of clinical effects of TAPP and TEP in the treatment of inguinal hernia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(04): 445-447.

目的

比较腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术(TAPP)和腹腔镜全腹膜外疝修补术(TEP)治疗腹股沟疝的临床效果。

方法

回顾性分析2012年1月至2022年12月5 015例行腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术患者资料。根据手术入路不同分为 TAPP组(n=2 256例)和TEP组(n=2 759例)。应用SPSS 22.0软件进行数据分析,采用倾向性评分匹配调整数据均衡性;围手术期指标、术后疼痛VAS评分等计量资料以()表示,组间对比采用独立样本t检验;复发情况、术后并发症等计数资料采用χ2检验。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

结果

TEP组患者较TAPP组下床活动时间、肠蠕动恢复时间更短,且手术费用较低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组患者术后并发症和术后复发比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

两种入路方式对腹股沟疝均有较好的治疗效果。但TEP更有助于患者恢复,且减轻了患者经济负担。

Objective

To compare the clinical effects of peritoneal peritoneal hernia repair (TAPP) and peritoneal peritoneal hernia repair (TEP) in the treatment of inguinal hernia.

Methods

Data of 5 015 patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair from January 2012 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into TAPP group (n=2 256 cases) and TEP group (n=2 759 cases) according to different surgical approaches. SPSS 22.0 software was used for data analysis, and propensity score matching was used to adjust the data balance. Measurement data such as perioperative indexes and postoperative pain VAS score were expressed as(). Independent sample t test was used for comparison between groups. The recurrence and postoperative complications were counted by χ2 test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Compared with TAPP group, the time of getting out of bed and intestinal peristalsis recovery were shorter in TEP group, and the operation cost was lower, with statistical significance (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications and recurrence between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Both approaches have good therapeutic effect on inguinal hernia. However, TEP is more conducive to the recovery of patients and reduces the economic burden of patients.

表1 两组患者一般资料比较
表2 两组患者围手术期指标、术后疼痛VAS评分比较
表3 两组患者匹配后术后并发症和复发比较[例(%)]
[1]
李继勇,罗琦,王满贞. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前修补术及全腹膜外疝修补术治疗复发性腹股沟疝比较[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志2020, 21(01): 18-21.
[2]
冯涛,詹兴云,林斯锋. 三种不同入路在腹腔镜解剖性肝切除术中的应用价值回顾性分析[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)2022, 16(01): 72-75.
[3]
曾斌. 腹腔镜疝修补术(TEP)与开放式无张力疝修补术治疗成人腹股沟疝的疗效比较[J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版)2021, 28(11): 2054-2055.
[4]
王伟. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前补术术中对Ⅲ型腹股沟斜疝疝囊采用完全剥离与横断处理的临床观察[J]. 检验医学与临床2020, 17(08): 1054-1057.
[5]
Tavares KMayo JBogenberger K,et al. Fibrin versuscyanoacrylate glue for fixation in laparoscopic inguinal herniarepair: a network meta -analysis and indirect comparison[J]. Hernia2020, 24(5): 927-935.
[6]
沈雄飞,马冬华,江礼娟,等. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝补术后血清肿的相关危险因素分析[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志2020, 25(03): 230-233.
[7]
马博,周军,李建刚,等. 单孔+1孔腹腔镜远端胃癌根治术的安全性评价[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)2021, 15(06): 653-656.
[8]
Li JGong WLiu Q. Intraoperative adjunctive techniques to reduce seroma formation in laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty: a systematic review[J]. Hernia2019, 23(4): 723-731.
[9]
蒋正顺,尤祥正. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝无张力修补术后并发症的危险因素分析[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志2020, 24(08): 608-612.
[10]
陈昕,徐露,殷骏,等. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术的临床疗效及术后并发症危险因素分析[J]. 中华消化外科杂志2021, 16(09): 915-920.
[11]
刘恒辰,张新宇. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后复发疝的原因分析[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志2021, 24(02): 157-160.
[12]
Li JSBao PQShao XY,et al. The management of indirect inguinal hernia sac in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a systemic review of literature[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech2021, 31(5): 645-653.
[1] 燕速, 霍博文. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治性切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 13-13.
[2] 母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[3] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[4] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[5] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[6] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[7] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[8] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[9] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[10] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[11] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[12] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
[13] 郭兵, 王万里, 何凯, 黄汉生. 腹腔镜下肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 143-143.
[14] 李凯, 陈淋, 苏怀东, 向涵, 张伟. 超微创器械在改良单孔腹腔镜巨大肝囊肿开窗引流及胆囊切除中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 144-144.
[15] 魏丽霞, 张安澜, 周宝勇, 李明. 腹腔镜下Ⅲb型肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 145-145.
阅读次数
全文


摘要