• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

比较普理灵疝修补系统与李金斯坦方法治疗腹股沟疝修补术的随机对照试验。

Randomized controlled trial comparing prolene hernia system and lichtenstein method for inguinal hernia repair.

作者信息

Sanjay Pandanaboyana, Harris Dean, Jones Philippa, Woodward Alan

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Llantrisant, UK.

出版信息

ANZ J Surg. 2006 Jul;76(7):548-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03774.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03774.x
PMID:16813616
Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are no data regarding the long-term outcomes of prolene hernia system (PHS) mesh in the published reports. The aim of the study was to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of the PHS mesh with the Lichtenstein mesh technique.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients with inguinal hernia were randomized to undergo either a PHS or a Lichtenstein repair under local anaesthesia as a day case. Early outcome measures were duration of surgery, pain scores, analgesic requirements, time to return to work, driving and full activity. Long-term outcome measures were chronic groin pain and recurrence.

RESULTS

Mean duration of surgery in the PHS group was 36 min (SD +/- 11) versus 34 min in the Lichtenstein group (SD +/- 8; P = 0.3). There was no significant difference in analgesic requirements (P = 0.65). Overall mean pain score was 3.5/10 versus 2.5/10 (P = 0.1). Mean time to return to work was 42 versus 30 days (P = 0.3), returning to driving was 20 versus 14 days (P = 0.2) and full activity was 21 versus 22 days (P = 0.8). Chronic groin pain developed in four patients in the PHS group (12.9%) and in five patients in the Lichtenstein group (15.1%; P > 0.05). One patient developed recurrent herniation in the PHS group. The median follow up was 4.2 years (range, 4-4.6 years). Patient satisfaction was very high with both the techniques.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant difference in the early and long-term outcomes between PHS and Lichtenstein hernia repairs. The PHS technique involving preperitoneal dissection is well tolerated and easy to carry out under local anaesthesia.

摘要

背景

已发表的报告中没有关于普理灵疝修补系统(PHS)补片长期疗效的数据。本研究的目的是比较PHS补片与李金斯坦修补技术的短期和长期疗效。

方法

64例腹股沟疝患者在局部麻醉下作为日间手术随机接受PHS修补或李金斯坦修补。早期疗效指标包括手术时间、疼痛评分、镇痛药物需求、恢复工作、开车和完全活动的时间。长期疗效指标包括慢性腹股沟疼痛和复发情况。

结果

PHS组的平均手术时间为36分钟(标准差±11),而李金斯坦组为34分钟(标准差±8;P = 0.3)。镇痛药物需求方面无显著差异(P = 0.65)。总体平均疼痛评分为3.5/10,而另一组为2.5/10(P = 0.1)。恢复工作的平均时间分别为42天和30天(P = 0.3),恢复开车的时间分别为20天和14天(P = 0.2),完全活动的时间分别为21天和22天(P = 0.8)。PHS组有4例患者出现慢性腹股沟疼痛(12.9%),李金斯坦组有5例患者出现(15.1%;P > 0.05)。PHS组有1例患者出现复发性疝。中位随访时间为4.2年(范围4 - 4.6年)。两种技术的患者满意度都很高。

结论

PHS疝修补术和李金斯坦疝修补术在早期和长期疗效方面无显著差异。涉及腹膜前解剖的PHS技术耐受性良好,且易于在局部麻醉下实施。

相似文献

1
Randomized controlled trial comparing prolene hernia system and lichtenstein method for inguinal hernia repair.比较普理灵疝修补系统与李金斯坦方法治疗腹股沟疝修补术的随机对照试验。
ANZ J Surg. 2006 Jul;76(7):548-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03774.x.
2
The comparison of preperitoneal and Lichtenstein repair for incarcerated groin hernias: a randomised controlled trial.经腹膜前修补术与李金斯坦修补术治疗嵌顿性腹股沟疝的比较:一项随机对照试验。
Int J Surg. 2008 Jun;6(3):189-92. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2008.02.007. Epub 2008 Mar 7.
3
Improved outcomes with the Prolene Hernia System mesh compared with the time-honored Lichtenstein onlay mesh repair for inguinal hernia repair.与历史悠久的Lichtenstein修补术使用的平片修补腹股沟疝相比,使用普理灵疝修补系统补片的治疗效果更佳。
Am J Surg. 2007 Jun;193(6):697-701. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.08.087.
4
Randomized clinical trial of Lichtenstein patch or Prolene Hernia System for inguinal hernia repair.利氏修补术或普理灵疝修补系统用于腹股沟疝修补的随机临床试验。
Br J Surg. 2006 Jan;93(1):33-9. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5235.
5
Randomized trial comparing the Prolene Hernia System, mesh plug repair and Lichtenstein method for open inguinal hernia repair.比较普理灵疝修补系统、疝环充填式无张力疝修补术及李金斯坦法开放腹股沟疝修补术的随机试验
Br J Surg. 2005 Jan;92(1):33-8. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4702.
6
Local versus general anaesthesia with Prolene Hernia System mesh for inguinal hernia repair: early and long-term outcomes.使用普理灵疝修补装置网片进行腹股沟疝修补时局部麻醉与全身麻醉的比较:早期和长期结果
Dig Surg. 2008;25(5):347-50. doi: 10.1159/000159623. Epub 2008 Oct 3.
7
Meta-analysis of Prolene Hernia System mesh versus Lichtenstein mesh in open inguinal hernia repair.普洛林疝修补系统补片与李金斯坦补片在开放式腹股沟疝修补术中的荟萃分析。
Surgeon. 2012 Oct;10(5):283-9. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2012.06.001. Epub 2012 Jul 21.
8
A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the Prolene Hernia System® and the Lichtenstein patch technique for inguinal hernia repair in long term: 2- and 5-Year results.一项前瞻性随机临床试验比较了 Prolene Hernia System® 和 Lichtenstein 补丁技术在长期腹股沟疝修补中的应用:2 年和 5 年的结果。
Am J Surg. 2011 Aug;202(2):188-93. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.06.027.
9
Prospective randomized controlled trial to compare skin staples and polypropylene for securing the mesh in inguinal hernia repair.比较皮肤吻合钉和聚丙烯在腹股沟疝修补术中固定补片的前瞻性随机对照试验。
Br J Surg. 1998 Jun;85(6):790-2. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00649.x.
10
[Comparison between two methods of inguinal hernia surgery--Lichtenstein and Desarda].两种腹股沟疝手术方法的比较——利chtenstein法与德萨尔达法
Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2008 May;24(143):392-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of minimally invasive preperitoneal (MIP) single-layer mesh repair and total extraperitoneal (TEP) repair for inguinal hernia in terms of postoperative chronic pain: a prospective randomized trial.微创腹膜前(MIP)单层补片修补术与完全腹膜外(TEP)修补术治疗腹股沟疝术后慢性疼痛的比较:一项前瞻性随机试验。
Turk J Surg. 2019 Mar 1;35(1):35-43. doi: 10.5578/turkjsurg.4128. eCollection 2019 Mar.
2
Prolene hernia system versus Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis.普理灵疝修补系统与李金斯坦修补术治疗腹股沟疝的比较:一项荟萃分析。
Hernia. 2019 Jun;23(3):541-546. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-01897-w. Epub 2019 Feb 15.
3
International guidelines for groin hernia management.
腹股沟疝治疗的国际指南。
Hernia. 2018 Feb;22(1):1-165. doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
4
Rates of and methods used at reoperation for recurrence after primary inguinal hernia repair with Prolene Hernia System and Lichtenstein.使用普理灵疝修补系统和李金斯坦术式进行原发性腹股沟疝修补术后复发再次手术的发生率及所采用的方法。
Hernia. 2018 Jun;22(3):439-444. doi: 10.1007/s10029-017-1705-9. Epub 2017 Dec 2.
5
UltraPro Hernia System, Prolene Hernia System and Lichtenstein for primary inguinal hernia repair: 3-year outcomes of a prospective randomized controlled trial.用于原发性腹股沟疝修补的UltraPro疝修补系统、普理灵疝修补系统和李金斯坦手术:一项前瞻性随机对照试验的3年结果
Hernia. 2016 Oct;20(5):641-8. doi: 10.1007/s10029-016-1507-5. Epub 2016 May 18.
6
Comparison of Coskun and Lichteinstein hernia repair methods for groin hernia.科斯昆(Coskun)和利希滕斯坦(Lichtenstein)腹股沟疝修补方法的比较。
Ann Surg Treat Res. 2015 Sep;89(3):138-44. doi: 10.4174/astr.2015.89.3.138. Epub 2015 Aug 24.
7
Comparative Study of Prolene Hernia System and Lichtenstein Method for Open Inguinal Hernia Repair.普理灵疝修补系统与李金斯坦法开放腹股沟疝修补术的对比研究
J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Jun;9(6):PC04-7. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12177.6009. Epub 2015 Jun 1.
8
Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients.更新欧洲疝学会成人腹股沟疝治疗指南的 1 级研究。
Hernia. 2014 Apr;18(2):151-63. doi: 10.1007/s10029-014-1236-6. Epub 2014 Mar 20.
9
Modified Kugel herniorrhaphy using standardized dissection technique of the preperitoneal space: long-term operative outcome in consecutive 340 patients with inguinal hernia.采用标准化腹膜前间隙解剖技术的改良 Kugel 疝修补术:连续 340 例腹股沟疝患者的长期手术结果。
Hernia. 2013 Dec;17(6):699-707. doi: 10.1007/s10029-013-1132-5. Epub 2013 Jun 28.
10
Anaesthetic preference and outcomes for elective inguinal hernia repair: a comparative analysis of public and private hospitals.择期腹股沟疝修补术的麻醉偏好和结果:公立医院和私立医院的比较分析。
Hernia. 2013 Dec;17(6):745-8. doi: 10.1007/s10029-012-1011-5. Epub 2012 Nov 7.