腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术(TEP)与传统疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效对比

Comparison of clinical efficacy of laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernia repair(TEP) and traditional hernia repair in inguinal hernia

目的分析腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术(TEP)与传统疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床疗效。方法选择我院2014年1月~2017年8月期间收治的94例腹股沟疝患者随机分为两组,对照组45例接受传统疝修补术治疗,研究组49例接受腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术治疗,观察两组的临床治疗效果。结果研究组并发症总发生率4.08%低于对照组17.78%(P<0.05)。研究组住院费用高于对照组,住院时间、术后疼痛时间、手术时间低于对照组(P<0.05)。研究组复发率0%低于对照组6.67%(P<0.05)。两组患者SDS、SAS评分比较,治疗前差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),治疗后,研究组评分低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论临床治疗腹股沟疝建议采用TEP手术,虽此方式和传统疝修补术比较,其治疗费用较高,但可降低并发症发生率,疾病恢复速度快,具有较大应用价值。

Objective To analyze the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernia repair（TEP） and traditional hernia repair in the treatment of inguinal hernia. Methods 94 inguinal hernia patients admitted in our hospital from January 2014 to August 2017 were randomly divided into two groups. 45 patients in the control group received conventional hernia repair and 49 patients in the study group received laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernia repair. The clinical treatment effects between the two groups were compared. Results The overall incidence of complications in the study group was 4.08% , which was lower than 17.78% in the control group（P〈0.05）. The hospitalization cost of the study group was higher than that of the control group. The hospitalization time, postoperative pain time and operation time in the study group was lower than that in the control group （P〈0.05）. The recurrence rate （0%） in the study group was lower than 6.67% in the control group（P〈0.05）. There was no significant difference in SDS and SAS scores between the two groups before treatment（P〉0.05）. After treatment, the scores in the study group were lower than those in the control group（P〈0.05）. Conclusion It is recommended to use TEP for clinical treatment of inguinal hernia. Although this method is more expensive than conventional hernia repair, it can reduce the incidence of complications and make the disease recover quickly. It has great application value.