中华普通外科杂志
中華普通外科雜誌
중화보통외과잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF GENERAL SURGERY
2015年
4期
264-267
,共4页
钱松屹%刘鹏%甄雅楠%叶志东%王非%林凡%杨煜光%刘江涛%樊雪强
錢鬆屹%劉鵬%甄雅楠%葉誌東%王非%林凡%楊煜光%劉江濤%樊雪彊
전송흘%류붕%견아남%협지동%왕비%림범%양욱광%류강도%번설강
静脉曲张%血管外科手术
靜脈麯張%血管外科手術
정맥곡장%혈관외과수술
Varicose veins%Vascular surgical procedures
目的 比较内窥镜下大隐静脉切除术及大隐静脉剥脱术联合透光旋切术治疗下肢静脉曲张的近期疗效.方法 回顾性分析2012年1月至2013年6月收治的有明确大隐静脉反流的下肢静脉曲张的66例患者(77条肢体)的临床资料,其中32例(36条肢体)采用内窥镜(endoscoptic vein harvesting,EVH)治疗;34例(41条肢体)采用内翻剥脱术.2组均联合透光旋切术(transilluminated powered phlebectomy,TIPP)治疗.比较2种方法手术时间、手术切口、术中出血量、术后住院时间、术后并发症及术后1年时的复发率.结果 手术时间EVH组较内翻剥脱组为长.术后住院时间EVH组(2.2±0.4)d与内翻剥脱组(3.4±0.6)d相比较短,二者差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).EVH组较内翻剥脱术组手术切口少(P<0.01);术后1年两组复发率相当(P>0.05),隐神经损伤发生率,内翻剥脱组与EVH组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 EVH治疗下肢静脉曲张创伤小,并发症少,近期效果良好.
目的 比較內窺鏡下大隱靜脈切除術及大隱靜脈剝脫術聯閤透光鏇切術治療下肢靜脈麯張的近期療效.方法 迴顧性分析2012年1月至2013年6月收治的有明確大隱靜脈反流的下肢靜脈麯張的66例患者(77條肢體)的臨床資料,其中32例(36條肢體)採用內窺鏡(endoscoptic vein harvesting,EVH)治療;34例(41條肢體)採用內翻剝脫術.2組均聯閤透光鏇切術(transilluminated powered phlebectomy,TIPP)治療.比較2種方法手術時間、手術切口、術中齣血量、術後住院時間、術後併髮癥及術後1年時的複髮率.結果 手術時間EVH組較內翻剝脫組為長.術後住院時間EVH組(2.2±0.4)d與內翻剝脫組(3.4±0.6)d相比較短,二者差異有統計學意義(P<0.01).EVH組較內翻剝脫術組手術切口少(P<0.01);術後1年兩組複髮率相噹(P>0.05),隱神經損傷髮生率,內翻剝脫組與EVH組差異無統計學意義(P>0.05).結論 EVH治療下肢靜脈麯張創傷小,併髮癥少,近期效果良好.
목적 비교내규경하대은정맥절제술급대은정맥박탈술연합투광선절술치료하지정맥곡장적근기료효.방법 회고성분석2012년1월지2013년6월수치적유명학대은정맥반류적하지정맥곡장적66례환자(77조지체)적림상자료,기중32례(36조지체)채용내규경(endoscoptic vein harvesting,EVH)치료;34례(41조지체)채용내번박탈술.2조균연합투광선절술(transilluminated powered phlebectomy,TIPP)치료.비교2충방법수술시간、수술절구、술중출혈량、술후주원시간、술후병발증급술후1년시적복발솔.결과 수술시간EVH조교내번박탈조위장.술후주원시간EVH조(2.2±0.4)d여내번박탈조(3.4±0.6)d상비교단,이자차이유통계학의의(P<0.01).EVH조교내번박탈술조수술절구소(P<0.01);술후1년량조복발솔상당(P>0.05),은신경손상발생솔,내번박탈조여EVH조차이무통계학의의(P>0.05).결론 EVH치료하지정맥곡장창상소,병발증소,근기효과량호.
Objective To compare the clinical results of endoscopic greater saphenous vein venectomy combined with transilluminated powered phlebectomy (TIPP) and conventional stripping combined with TIPP for lower extremity varicosis.Methods We retrospectively analyzed data of 66 patients (77 limbs) with primary vein varicosis of the lower extremity who underwent EVH with TIPP (32 cases,36 limbs)or conventional stripping with TIPP (34 cases,41 limbs) in our department from Jan 2012 to Jun 2013.Operation time,number of the incision made,postoperative hospital stay,complications,and one-year recurrence rate were compared with each other.Results Operation time in EVH group was longer than in stripping group.Postoperative hospital stay was shorter in EVH and TIPP group (2.2 ± 0.4) d than that in stripping and TIPP group (3.4 ±0.6) d (P <0.001).Patients in stripping group also suffered from more incisions when compared with EVH group (P < 0.001).There were no significant diffrences in one-year recurrece rate and incidental nervus saphenus iniury in the two groups (P > 0.05).Conclusions EVH is less invasive,with smaller incison than conventional stripping for the treatment of lower extremity varicose vein and favorable short term prognosis.