摘要
目的探讨腔镜切口疝修补术与常规开放切口疝修补术的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2008年2月至2014年2月77例腹壁切口疝患者的临床资料,其中常规组41例,腹腔镜组36例。采用SPSS 13.0软件进行数据处理。手术时间、术中出血、术后肛门排气时间、住院时间组间比较采用t检验,术后疼痛等并发症、术后复发率等组间比较采用χ2检验,以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果两组患者在手术时间(P=0.463)、切口感染(P=0.263)、肠管损伤(P=0.211)、术后复发(P=0.962)差异无统计学意义;但腔镜组在术中出血(P=0.000)、术后肛门排气时间(P=0.000)、住院时间(P=0.001)、术后疼痛(P=0.031)方面明显优于开放组,差异有统计学意义。结论二种治疗方法同样安全有效,但腹腔镜切口疝修补术具有创伤小、疼痛轻、恢复快、住院时间短等优点。
Objective To study clinical outcomes of open hernia repair and laparoscopic herniorrhaphy for abdominal incisional hernia. Methods From February 2008 to February 2014,clinical data of 77 patients with abdominal incisional hernia were analyzed retrospectively. Of these patients,41 were allocated in an open group and 36 in a laparoscopic group. Data processing was carried out using SPSS 13. 0software. Operative time,intraoperative blood loss,exhaust time and hospital stay were compared using Student＇s t test,whereas the incidence of complications and recurrence were compared using the Chi-square test. P 0. 05 was considered as statistically significant. Results There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in operative time（ P = 0. 463）,wound infection（ P = 0. 263）,bowel injury（ P = 0. 211）and postoperative recurrence（ P = 0. 962）. However,blood loss（ P = 0. 000）,postoperative exhausting time（ P =0. 000）,hospital stay（ P = 0. 001）,and postoperative pain（ P = 0. 031） in the laparoscopic group were better than those in the open group. Conclusions Both of laparoscopic and open repair are safe and effective. Moreover,laparoscopic incisional hernia repair has advantages of mini-invasive,less pain,rapid recovery and short hospital stay.
出处
《中华普外科手术学杂志（电子版）》
2015年第1期32-34,共3页
Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition)
