无张力疝修补术与传统疝修补术在腹股沟疝中的治疗效果比较

薛孝斌

（西安市长安区医院，陕西西安，710100）

浏览次数：92次 下载次数：397次

摘要：

目的 观察无张力疝修补术与传统疝修补术在腹股沟疝治疗中的临床效果。方法 将106例腹股沟疝患者随机均分为对照组和观察组，对照组采用传统疝修补术治疗，观察组采用充填式无张力疝修补术治疗。比较两组的治疗效果，术中出血量、住院时间等手术指标及不良反应发生情况。结果 观察组在显效率、总有效率上高于对照组，无效率上低于对照组（P<0.05）；观察组在手术时间、住院时间、切口长度上均短于对照组，且术后下床活动时间早于对照组（P<0.05）；观察组的阴囊肿胀、创口感染、切口疼痛、尿潴留等并发症的总发生率低于对照组（P<0.05）。结论 采用无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝，临床效果优于传统疝修补术，不良反应发生率低，值得临床推广应用。

关键词：无张力；疝修补术；腹股沟疝

中图分类号：R656.2文献标志码：A文章编号：2096-1413(2017)09-0048-02

Effect comparison of the tension-free hernia repair and traditional hernia repair in the treatment of inguinal hernia

XUE Xiao-bin

(Chang'an District Hospital, Xi'an 710100, China)

ABSTRACT: Objective To observe the clinical effect of tension-free hernia repair and traditional hernia repair in the treatment of patients with inguinal hernia. Methods One hundred and six patients with inguinal hernia were randomly divided into control group and observation group. The control group accepted the traditional hernia repair treatment, and treatment in the observation was tension hernia repair. The treatment effect, the surgery indexes such as intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results The significant efficiency and total effectiveness of the observation group were higher than those of the control group, the inefficiency was lower than that of the control group (P<0.05). The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, incisional length of the observation group were shorter than those of the control group, and the postoperative activity time was earlier than that of the control group (P<0.05). The incidence of scrotal swelling, wound infection, incisional pain, urinary retention and the total adverse reactions rate of the observation group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion The use of tension-free hernia repair surgery on inguinal hernia is superior to the traditional, the incidence of adverse reactions is low, which is worthy of clinical application.

KEYWORDS: tension-free; hernia repair; traditional hernia repair

参考文献：
[1] 赵文兵.无张力疝修补术与传统疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝的效果比较[J].中国当代医药,2014,21(21):37-38,41.
[2] 朱凤华.传统疝修补术和无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟疝气的临床疗效比较[J].中国卫生标准管理,2015,6(19):67-68.
[3] 熊勤涛.传统疝修补术与疝环充填式无张力疝修补术在腹股沟疝治疗中的应用体会[J].临床和实验医学杂志,2011,10(16):1254-1255,
1257.
[4] 林建华.探讨无张力疝修补术在腹股沟疝治疗中的应用效果[J].当代医学,2016,22(3):51-52.
[5] 张文俊.疝环填充式无张力疝修补术与传统疝修补术在腹股沟疝治疗中的疗效[J].包头医学院学报,2015,31(10):57-58.
[6] 周湛帆,田德清.疝环填充式无张力疝修补术与传统疝修补术在腹股沟疝治疗中的疗效比较[J].中华疝和腹壁外髁杂志,2011,5(2):183-186.
[7] 杨新平,李嵩山,廖长剑,等.超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞和髂腹股沟/髂腹下神经阻滞应用于腹股沟疝修补术镇痛效果比较[J].安徽医
学,2016,37(7):815-818.
[8] 唐新华,刘燕萍.无张力疝修补术在腹股沟疝治疗中的应用效果分析[J].实用心脑肺血管病杂志,2014,22(9):124-125.
[9] 王飞.无张力疝修补手术治疗成人疝气的价值分析[J].现代诊断与治疗,2016,27(15):2903-2904.
[10] 陈弘.无张力疝修补术在治疗老年腹股沟疝中的临床应用效果分析[J].中国实用医药,2012,7(27):49-50.