腹膜前间隙与疝环充填式无张力腹股沟斜疝修补术式的临床对比

目的腹膜前间隙与疝环充填式无张力腹股沟斜疝修补术式治疗无张力腹股沟斜疝的临床疗效对比。方法 68例无张力腹股沟斜疝患者为研究对象,随机分为2组,治疗A组(34例)采用腹膜前间隙无张力腹股沟斜疝修补术进行治疗;治疗B组(34例)采用疝环填充式无张力腹股沟斜疝修补术进行治疗,对两组患者治疗的效果以及并发症发生情况进行对比,并对患者进行6个月的随访。结果治疗A组患者在术后出现疼痛、异物感、切口感染、发热、阴囊水肿等并发症的发生率明显要低于治疗B组(P<0.05);治疗A组复发率为2.94%,治疗B组复发率为5.88%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论临床上采用两种方式对腹股沟斜疝进行修补复发率均较小,都具有很好的临床疗效,但腹膜前间隙修补术安全性更高。

Objective Peritoneal former clearance and hernia ring packing type without tension inguinal hernia repair operation treatment without tension inguinal hernia the clinical curative effect of the contrast. Methods 68 cases of no tension inguinal hernia patients as the research object, and randomLy divided into 2 groups, the treatment group A （34 cases） using peritoneal former clearance no tension inguinal hernia neoplasty for treatment; Treatment group B （34 cases） using hernia ring filling type without tension inguinal hernia neoplasty treatment, the two groups were the effects of the treatment and complications were compared, and the patients to 6 months of follow-up. Results Treatment group A patient in the postoperatie pain, foreign body sensation, infection of incision, fever, scrotal edema and the incidence of complications obviously than treatment group B （P〈0.05）; Treatment group A recurrence rate was 2.94%, the treatment group B recurrence rate was 5.88%, the difference was statistically significant （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Clinical to use two kinds of way for inguinal oblique mountain to repair the recurrence rate is small, it has very good clinical curative effect, but peritoneal former clearance suture higher safety.