儿童腹腔镜腹股沟外技术与开放式腹股沟疝切开术:历史对照干预研究。

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 PEDIATRICS
Arada Suttiwongsing, Jiraporn Khorana, Patchara Ruangwongroj, Korakot Niruttiwat
{"title":"儿童腹腔镜腹股沟外技术与开放式腹股沟疝切开术:历史对照干预研究。","authors":"Arada Suttiwongsing,&nbsp;Jiraporn Khorana,&nbsp;Patchara Ruangwongroj,&nbsp;Korakot Niruttiwat","doi":"10.1136/wjps-2022-000436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare surgical outcomes of percutaneous extraperitoneal simple purse string method of laparoscopic hernia (LH) repair with a traditional open inguinal hernia (OH) repair in children with indirect inguinal hernia in a single center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a historical-controlled intervention study of two groups of patients: patients in the controlled group had OH repair performed from January 2016 to December 2017, and patients in the study group had LH repair from January 2018 to December 2019 at a single institution. Outcomes of the OH and LH groups, in terms of operative time, recurrence, complications, incidence of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH) and contralateral patent processus vaginalis (CPPV) were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three hundred and five patients were enrolled in the study. Among them, 95 cases underwent laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure herniotomy (LH group), and 210 cases underwent conventional open herniotomy (OH group). In terms of operative time, only unilateral herniotomy in females of the OH group was significantly less than that of the LH group (15.7±7.1 vs 20.5±7.4 min, p=0.004). No significant difference in overall complication was observed between the two groups of patients. The incidence of CPPV in the LH group was 15.7% (15/95), and MCIH in OH group was 10.9% (23/210).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Laparoscopic herniotomy may prevent the need for a second operation of metachronous contralateral hernia. Both open and laparoscopic techniques are equivalent in pro and cons.</p>","PeriodicalId":23823,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Pediatric Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3e/45/wjps-2022-000436.PMC9716936.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic extraperitoneal technique versus open inguinal herniotomy in children: historical controlled intervention study.\",\"authors\":\"Arada Suttiwongsing,&nbsp;Jiraporn Khorana,&nbsp;Patchara Ruangwongroj,&nbsp;Korakot Niruttiwat\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/wjps-2022-000436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare surgical outcomes of percutaneous extraperitoneal simple purse string method of laparoscopic hernia (LH) repair with a traditional open inguinal hernia (OH) repair in children with indirect inguinal hernia in a single center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a historical-controlled intervention study of two groups of patients: patients in the controlled group had OH repair performed from January 2016 to December 2017, and patients in the study group had LH repair from January 2018 to December 2019 at a single institution. Outcomes of the OH and LH groups, in terms of operative time, recurrence, complications, incidence of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH) and contralateral patent processus vaginalis (CPPV) were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three hundred and five patients were enrolled in the study. Among them, 95 cases underwent laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure herniotomy (LH group), and 210 cases underwent conventional open herniotomy (OH group). In terms of operative time, only unilateral herniotomy in females of the OH group was significantly less than that of the LH group (15.7±7.1 vs 20.5±7.4 min, p=0.004). No significant difference in overall complication was observed between the two groups of patients. The incidence of CPPV in the LH group was 15.7% (15/95), and MCIH in OH group was 10.9% (23/210).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Laparoscopic herniotomy may prevent the need for a second operation of metachronous contralateral hernia. Both open and laparoscopic techniques are equivalent in pro and cons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23823,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Pediatric Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3e/45/wjps-2022-000436.PMC9716936.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Pediatric Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/wjps-2022-000436\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Pediatric Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/wjps-2022-000436","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:比较单中心经皮腹膜外简单荷包线法腹腔镜疝(LH)修补术与传统开放式腹股沟疝(OH)修补术治疗儿童腹股沟间接疝的手术效果。方法:本研究为两组患者的历史对照干预研究:对照组患者于2016年1月至2017年12月在单一机构进行OH修复,研究组患者于2018年1月至2019年12月进行LH修复。从手术时间、复发率、并发症、异时性对侧腹股沟疝(MCIH)和对侧阴道突未闭(CPPV)发生率等方面分析OH组和LH组的结果。结果:305例患者入组研究。其中腹腔镜经皮腹腔外闭合性疝切开术95例(LH组),常规开放式疝切开术210例(OH组)。在手术时间上,OH组女性仅单侧疝切开术时间明显少于LH组(15.7±7.1 vs 20.5±7.4 min, p=0.004)。两组患者的总并发症无显著差异。LH组CPPV发生率为15.7% (15/95),OH组MCIH发生率为10.9%(23/210)。结论:腹腔镜疝切开术可避免异时性对侧疝的第二次手术。开放技术和腹腔镜技术在优缺点上是相同的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laparoscopic extraperitoneal technique versus open inguinal herniotomy in children: historical controlled intervention study.

Objective: To compare surgical outcomes of percutaneous extraperitoneal simple purse string method of laparoscopic hernia (LH) repair with a traditional open inguinal hernia (OH) repair in children with indirect inguinal hernia in a single center.

Methods: This study is a historical-controlled intervention study of two groups of patients: patients in the controlled group had OH repair performed from January 2016 to December 2017, and patients in the study group had LH repair from January 2018 to December 2019 at a single institution. Outcomes of the OH and LH groups, in terms of operative time, recurrence, complications, incidence of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH) and contralateral patent processus vaginalis (CPPV) were analyzed.

Results: Three hundred and five patients were enrolled in the study. Among them, 95 cases underwent laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure herniotomy (LH group), and 210 cases underwent conventional open herniotomy (OH group). In terms of operative time, only unilateral herniotomy in females of the OH group was significantly less than that of the LH group (15.7±7.1 vs 20.5±7.4 min, p=0.004). No significant difference in overall complication was observed between the two groups of patients. The incidence of CPPV in the LH group was 15.7% (15/95), and MCIH in OH group was 10.9% (23/210).

Conclusions: Laparoscopic herniotomy may prevent the need for a second operation of metachronous contralateral hernia. Both open and laparoscopic techniques are equivalent in pro and cons.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
38
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信