| Literature DB >> 35070242 |
Zhao Zhang1, Li Li1, Bo Liu1, Fengen Wang1, Wenli Wang1, Xian Liu1, Yanmei Ju1.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to clarify the influence of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal umbilical hernia repair on incision infection, complication rate, and recurrence rate in patients with an umbilical hernia (UH). Sixty-seven UH patients referred to our hospital from June 2017 to June 2019 were selected as the research participants. Thirty-six patients in the research group (RG) were treated with laparoscopic total extraperitoneal umbilical hernia repair, and the other 31 cases in the control group (CG) were treated with traditional umbilical hernia repair. The two cohorts of patients were compared with respect to the curative effect after treatment; intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative pain time, ambulation time, and hospital stay; incidence of complications; pain severity (VAS) before and after operation; sleep quality (PSQI) before and after operation; patient satisfaction after treatment; and recurrence half a year after discharge. The RG presented a higher effective treatment rate (P < 0.05), less intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative pain time, ambulation time, and hospital stay, as well as lower incidence of complications than the CG (P < 0.05). VAS and PSQI scores differed insignificantly between the two cohorts of patients before treatment (P > 0.05) but reduced after treatment, with lower VAS and PSQI scores in the RG than in the CG (P < 0.05). The number of people who were highly satisfied, as investigated by the satisfaction survey, was higher in the RG than in the CG, while the recurrence rate of prognosis was lower than that in the CG (P < 0.05). Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal umbilical hernia repair is effective for UH patients and can validly reduce the incidence of complications and recurrence rate, which has huge clinical application value.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35070242 PMCID: PMC8767355 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7055045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
General data of patients [n (%)].
| Research group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years old) | 1.115 | 0.269 | ||
| 42.7 ± 3.2 | 43.6 ± 3.4 | |||
| Gender | 0.061 | 0.806 | ||
| Male | 15 (41.67) | 12 (38.71) | ||
| Female | 21 (58.33) | 19 (61.29) | ||
| BMI (kg/cm2) | 0.401 | 0.690 | ||
| 24.12 ± 3.23 | 24.46 ± 3.71 | |||
| Hernia ring diameter (cm) | 0.189 | 0.851 | ||
| 4.64 ± 2.63 | 4.52 ± 2.55 | |||
| Living environment | 0.129 | 0.720 | ||
| Urban | 17 (47.22) | 16 (51.61) | ||
| Rural | 19 (52.78) | 15 (48.39) | ||
| Exercise habits | 0.113 | 0.910 | ||
| Yes | 10 (27.78) | 9 (29.03) | ||
| No | 26 (72.22) | 22 (70.97) | ||
| History of smoking | 0.110 | 0.741 | ||
| Yes | 13 (36.11) | 10 (32.26) | ||
| No | 23 (63.89) | 21 (67.74) | ||
| History of drinking | 0.104 | 0.747 | ||
| Yes | 16 (44.44) | 15 (48.39) | ||
| No | 20 (55.56) | 16 (51.61) | ||
| History of diabetes | 0.037 | 0.848 | ||
| Yes | 4 (11.11) | 3 (9.68) | ||
| No | 32 (88.89) | 28 (90.32) | ||
| Ethnicity | 1.413 | 0.235 | ||
| Han | 35 (97.22) | 28 (90.32) | ||
| Ethnic minorities | 1 (2.78) | 3 (9.68) |
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups [n (%)].
| Research group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cured | ||||
| 18 (50.00) | 10 (32.26) | |||
| Effective | ||||
| 16 (44.44) | 14 (45.16) | |||
| Ineffective | ||||
| 2 (5.56) | 7 (22.58) | |||
| Total effective rate | 4.152 | 0.042 | ||
| 34 (94.44) | 26 (83.87) |
Figure 1Comparison of clinical indexes. (a) Comparison of intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. (b) Comparison of operation time between the two groups. (c) Comparison of postoperative pain time between the two groups. (d) Comparison of ambulation time between the two groups. (e) Comparison of hospital stay between the two groups. Note.P < 0.05.
Comparison of incidence of complications between the two groups [n (%)].
| Research group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incision infection | ||||
| 1 (2.78) | 4 (12.90) | |||
| Hematoma | ||||
| 1 (2.78) | 1 (3.23) | |||
| Ileus | ||||
| 0 (0.00) | 1 (3.23) | |||
| Thrombosis | ||||
| 1 (2.78) | 2 (6.45) | |||
| Pneumonia | ||||
| 0 (0.00) | 1 (3.23) | |||
| Incidence of complications (%) | 4.854 | 0.028 | ||
| 8.33 | 29.03 |
Figure 2Pain score (VAS) and sleep quality (PSQI) assessments in the two groups. (a) VAS scores in the two groups. (b) PSQI scores in the two groups. Note.P < 0.05 vs. before treatment and P < 0.05 vs. the research group.
Comparison of treatment satisfaction between two groups [n (%)].
| Research group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Highly satisfied | 11.490 | 0.001 | ||
| 23 (63.89) | 7 (22.58) | |||
| Satisfied | 3.025 | 0.082 | ||
| 10 (27.78) | 15 (48.39) | |||
| Improvement needed | 1.740 | 0.187 | ||
| 3 (8.33) | 6 (19.35) | |||
| Dissatisfied | 2.394 | 0.122 | ||
| 0 (0.00) | 2 (6.45) |
Recurrence in patients in the two groups after discharge [n(%)].
| Research group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recurrence rate (%) | 6.257 | 0.012 | ||
| 0 (0.00) | 5 (16.13) |