中华普通外科学文献（电子版）
中華普通外科學文獻（電子版）
중화보통외과학문헌（전자판）
CHINESE JOURNAL OF GENERAL SURGERY(ELECTRONIC VERSION)
2015年
3期
216-218
,共3页
腹壁切口疝%腹腔镜%手术%补片
腹壁切口疝%腹腔鏡%手術%補片
복벽절구산%복강경%수술%보편
Ventral incision hernia%Laparoscopy%Surgery%Patch
目的：对比观察腹腔镜腹壁切口疝修补术与开放式切口疝修补术的疗效,以供临床参考。方法总结2011年8月至2014年1月本院外科收治的52例腹壁切口疝患者临床资料,其中腹腔镜手术组28例,开放手术组24例。观察两组患者手术时间、住院时间、术中出血量、术区感染、术后疼痛的差异。结果两组患者均顺利完成手术,与腹腔镜手术组对比,开放手术组在手术时间[(56.43±21.23) min vs (78.12±18.15) min, t=3.924, P<0.01]、住院时间[(5.12±1.18) d vs (7.25±2.45) d, t=4.085, P<0.01]、术中出血[(12.67±8.87) ml vs (135.18±56.78) ml, t=-6.927, P<0.01]、术后感染及疼痛等方面差异有统计学意义。结论腹腔镜及开放式两种手术方式同样安全有效,腹腔镜手术在缩短住院时间,减少术中出血、术后疼痛方面占有明显优势。
目的：對比觀察腹腔鏡腹壁切口疝脩補術與開放式切口疝脩補術的療效,以供臨床參攷。方法總結2011年8月至2014年1月本院外科收治的52例腹壁切口疝患者臨床資料,其中腹腔鏡手術組28例,開放手術組24例。觀察兩組患者手術時間、住院時間、術中齣血量、術區感染、術後疼痛的差異。結果兩組患者均順利完成手術,與腹腔鏡手術組對比,開放手術組在手術時間[(56.43±21.23) min vs (78.12±18.15) min, t=3.924, P<0.01]、住院時間[(5.12±1.18) d vs (7.25±2.45) d, t=4.085, P<0.01]、術中齣血[(12.67±8.87) ml vs (135.18±56.78) ml, t=-6.927, P<0.01]、術後感染及疼痛等方麵差異有統計學意義。結論腹腔鏡及開放式兩種手術方式同樣安全有效,腹腔鏡手術在縮短住院時間,減少術中齣血、術後疼痛方麵佔有明顯優勢。
목적：대비관찰복강경복벽절구산수보술여개방식절구산수보술적료효,이공림상삼고。방법총결2011년8월지2014년1월본원외과수치적52례복벽절구산환자림상자료,기중복강경수술조28례,개방수술조24례。관찰량조환자수술시간、주원시간、술중출혈량、술구감염、술후동통적차이。결과량조환자균순리완성수술,여복강경수술조대비,개방수술조재수술시간[(56.43±21.23) min vs (78.12±18.15) min, t=3.924, P<0.01]、주원시간[(5.12±1.18) d vs (7.25±2.45) d, t=4.085, P<0.01]、술중출혈[(12.67±8.87) ml vs (135.18±56.78) ml, t=-6.927, P<0.01]、술후감염급동통등방면차이유통계학의의。결론복강경급개방식량충수술방식동양안전유효,복강경수술재축단주원시간,감소술중출혈、술후동통방면점유명현우세。
Objective To contrast the effect between laparoscopic repair and open surgery repair for curing ventral incisional hernia (VIH). Methods From August 2011 to January 2014, fifty-two pa-tients with VIH undergoing surgical treatment were absorbed as the research object, including 28 cases of laparoscopic group and 24 cases of open surgery group. Operation time, intra-operative blood loss, hospital stay, the site of infection and postoperative pain in the two groups were observed. Results Operations of both groups were successful. Compared with laparoscopic group, open surgery group showed significant differences in operation time [(56.43±21.23) min vs (78.12±18.15) min, t=3.924, P<0.01], the length of hospital stay [(5.12 ±1.18) d vs (7.25 ±2.45) d, P<0.05], intra-operative bleeding [(12.67 ±8.87) ml vs (135.18 ±56.78) ml, P<0.05], and postoperative infection and pain. Conclusion Both operations are e-qually safe, while laparoscopic surgery has obvious advantages in shorter hospital stay, less intra-operative bleeding and lighter postoperative pain.
