腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术:经腹腹膜前和全腹膜外技术的比较-初步经验的结果

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY
Muhammer Ergenç, Taygun Gülşen
{"title":"腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术:经腹腹膜前和全腹膜外技术的比较-初步经验的结果","authors":"Muhammer Ergenç, Taygun Gülşen","doi":"10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_27_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIMS: This study aimed to analyze the results of transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and total extraperitoneal (TEP) repairs performed by two authors and to compare two laparoscopic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent inguinal hernia surgery in a secondary-care hospital between 2019 and 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. Demographics, hernia side and type, primary or recurrent hernia situation, size of hernia orifice, operation type, postoperative complications, duration of operation, length of hospital stay, recurrence, and follow-up time were examined. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven patients were analyzed. The mean age was 49.4 ± 13 years, with a male/female ratio of 106/5. About 82% of hernias were unilateral, and 18% were bilateral. Sixty-four TAPP and 47 TEP repairs were performed. Follow-up time (months, mean ± standard deviation) (range) was 14.2 ± 10 (1–37). About 42.3% of the hernias were direct, 49.5% were indirect, and 8.1% were pantaloon hernias. The recurrence rate was 1.8%. The operation time was significantly lower in the TEP than in TAPP (64.4 ± 23.5, 96.7 ± 31.9, respectively, P < 0.001). TAPP was preferred in patients with larger hernia orifices (P = 0.01). The two groups had no significant difference regarding postoperative complications and recurrence rate. CONCLUSION: Our study did not detect any significant difference between TAPP and TEP repair regarding recurrence rate and postoperative complication. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, which has advantages such as short hospital stay and less pain, can be safely performed in a secondary-care hospital.","PeriodicalId":34200,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: A comparison of transabdominal preperitoneal and total extraperitoneal techniques—Results of initial experiences\",\"authors\":\"Muhammer Ergenç, Taygun Gülşen\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_27_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AIMS: This study aimed to analyze the results of transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and total extraperitoneal (TEP) repairs performed by two authors and to compare two laparoscopic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent inguinal hernia surgery in a secondary-care hospital between 2019 and 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. Demographics, hernia side and type, primary or recurrent hernia situation, size of hernia orifice, operation type, postoperative complications, duration of operation, length of hospital stay, recurrence, and follow-up time were examined. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven patients were analyzed. The mean age was 49.4 ± 13 years, with a male/female ratio of 106/5. About 82% of hernias were unilateral, and 18% were bilateral. Sixty-four TAPP and 47 TEP repairs were performed. Follow-up time (months, mean ± standard deviation) (range) was 14.2 ± 10 (1–37). About 42.3% of the hernias were direct, 49.5% were indirect, and 8.1% were pantaloon hernias. The recurrence rate was 1.8%. The operation time was significantly lower in the TEP than in TAPP (64.4 ± 23.5, 96.7 ± 31.9, respectively, P < 0.001). TAPP was preferred in patients with larger hernia orifices (P = 0.01). The two groups had no significant difference regarding postoperative complications and recurrence rate. CONCLUSION: Our study did not detect any significant difference between TAPP and TEP repair regarding recurrence rate and postoperative complication. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, which has advantages such as short hospital stay and less pain, can be safely performed in a secondary-care hospital.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34200,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_27_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_27_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在分析两位作者进行经腹腹膜前(TAPP)和全腹膜外(TEP)修复的结果,并比较两种腹腔镜方法。材料和方法:回顾性评估2019年至2022年在二级医院接受腹股沟疝手术的患者。观察患者的人口统计学特征、疝侧边及类型、原发性或复发性疝情况、疝口大小、手术类型、术后并发症、手术时间、住院时间、复发情况、随访时间。比较两组围手术期疗效。结果:对111例患者进行了分析。平均年龄49.4±13岁,男女比例106/5。约82%的疝为单侧疝,18%为双侧疝。64例TAPP和47例TEP修复。随访时间(月,均值±标准差)(范围)为14.2±10(1-37)。直接疝占42.3%,间接疝占49.5%,腹疝占8.1%。复发率为1.8%。TEP组的手术时间明显低于TAPP组(分别为64.4±23.5、96.7±31.9,P < 0.001)。大疝口患者首选TAPP (P = 0.01)。两组术后并发症及复发率无明显差异。结论:我们的研究没有发现TAPP和TEP修复在复发率和术后并发症方面有显著差异。腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术具有住院时间短、疼痛少等优点,可在二级护理医院安全进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: A comparison of transabdominal preperitoneal and total extraperitoneal techniques—Results of initial experiences
AIMS: This study aimed to analyze the results of transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and total extraperitoneal (TEP) repairs performed by two authors and to compare two laparoscopic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent inguinal hernia surgery in a secondary-care hospital between 2019 and 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. Demographics, hernia side and type, primary or recurrent hernia situation, size of hernia orifice, operation type, postoperative complications, duration of operation, length of hospital stay, recurrence, and follow-up time were examined. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven patients were analyzed. The mean age was 49.4 ± 13 years, with a male/female ratio of 106/5. About 82% of hernias were unilateral, and 18% were bilateral. Sixty-four TAPP and 47 TEP repairs were performed. Follow-up time (months, mean ± standard deviation) (range) was 14.2 ± 10 (1–37). About 42.3% of the hernias were direct, 49.5% were indirect, and 8.1% were pantaloon hernias. The recurrence rate was 1.8%. The operation time was significantly lower in the TEP than in TAPP (64.4 ± 23.5, 96.7 ± 31.9, respectively, P < 0.001). TAPP was preferred in patients with larger hernia orifices (P = 0.01). The two groups had no significant difference regarding postoperative complications and recurrence rate. CONCLUSION: Our study did not detect any significant difference between TAPP and TEP repair regarding recurrence rate and postoperative complication. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, which has advantages such as short hospital stay and less pain, can be safely performed in a secondary-care hospital.
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
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
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