背景:股疝常伴有嵌顿或绞窄,需要紧急手术。然而,关于嵌顿性股疝的最佳入路,建议有所不同。本研究的目的是比较网片修补术和缝线修补术治疗嵌顿性股疝的临床疗效。
方法:回顾性,单中心分析48例嵌顿性股疝患者的临床资料,包括16例接受网状物修复(网状物修复组)和32例接受传统缝合修复(缝合修复组)的患者。
结果:平均年龄,身体质量指数,监禁时间,疝囊大小,操作持续时间,术后切口感染率,复发,慢性疼痛,缝合修复组和网片修复组死亡率差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。相比之下,女性/男性比例;肠梗阻的发生率,共存的疾病,和夜间手术;缝合修复组的美国麻醉医师协会等级较高,预防性抗生素使用率和平均住院费用均低于网状修复组(均P<0.05)。
结论:应根据患者的情况选择手术方式。网状修补术用于急诊治疗嵌顿性股疝是安全有效的,而缝合修复适用于老年患者,那些患有更多共存疾病的人,以及预期寿命有限的人。
Femoral hernias often present with incarceration or strangulation that requires emergency surgery. However, recommendations vary regarding optimal approaches for incarcerated femoral hernia. The aim of this study is to compare clinical efficacy between mesh repair and suture repair for the treatment of incarcerated femoral hernia.
Retrospective, single-center analysis of the clinical data from 48 patients with incarcerated femoral hernia, including 16 patients who underwent mesh repair (mesh repair group) and 32 patients who underwent traditional suture repair (suture repair group).
The mean age, body mass index, incarceration duration, hernia sac size, operation duration, and the rates of postoperative incision infection, recurrence, chronic pain, and mortality were not significantly different between the suture repair and mesh repair groups (P > 0.05 for all). In contrast, the female/male ratio; the rates of bowel obstruction, coexisting diseases, and nighttime operation; and the American Society of Anesthesiologists grade were higher and the rate of prophylactic antibiotic use and the mean cost of hospitalization were lower in the suture repair group than in the mesh repair group (P < 0.05 for all).
The surgical approach should be chosen based on the patient\'s condition. Mesh repair for the emergency treatment of incarcerated femoral hernia is safe and effective, whereas suture repair is suitable for elderly patients, those with more coexisting diseases, and those with limited life expectancy.