临床小儿外科杂志

目的总结传统两孔、单部位两孔和单孔三种操作通道下腹腔镜技术经皮腹膜外环扎术治疗儿童各种类型鞘膜积液的临床经验。方法回顾性分析两所专业儿童医疗中心自2013年8月至2015年8月收治的950例不同类型男性儿童鞘膜积液病例资料。年龄4个月至14岁,平均年龄(3.68±2.20)岁。患儿均采用腹腔镜下经皮腹膜外环扎术。依据操作通道的不同分为:传统两孔组387例,单部位两孔组468例,单孔组95例。比较各组患儿手术过程、疗效与并发症情况。结果 950例均顺利完成手术,共关闭未闭鞘状突1 383侧。发现对侧隐性鞘状突未闭288例(35.8%)。4例因术中腹腔镜下未发现开放的鞘状突内口,改为经阴囊的睾丸鞘膜翻转手术。三组手术时间无明显差异( χ2= 5.76,P= 0.07)。术后随访时间中位数为16.5个月(8～32个月)。两医疗中心在并发症方面比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。传统两孔组、单部位两孔组、单孔组分别发现对侧隐性鞘状突未闭122例、148例、18例,发生腹膜后血肿例数分别为4例、2例、0例,术后复发例数分别为4例、4例、2例,术后对侧异时性鞘膜积液分别为0例、0例、2例,脐部切口感染分别为1例、0例、0例。单孔组与其他两组相比,在发现对侧隐性鞘状突未闭和术后对侧异时性鞘膜积液的比例上差异有统计学意义(P< 0.05)。记录三组各15例患儿术后6 h疼痛FLACC评分,均在0～2分。随机调查50例患儿术后1年脐部伤口外观情况,单部位两孔组与单孔组术后伤口外观无差别。结论腹腔镜经皮腹膜外环扎术治疗各种类型儿童鞘膜积液操作简便,疗效确切。环脐单部位两孔法手术操作较单孔手术更加简便,术后伤口外观优于传统两孔法,并可与单孔手术伤口相媲美。在对侧隐性鞘状突未闭的探查上两孔法较单孔法更有优势。

Objective To sum up the experiences of different approaches of conventional two-port surgery, transumbilical single-site two-port surgery and single-site surgery of laparoendoscopic percutaneous extra-peritoneal closure(LPEC)for various typeshydroceles in children. Methods At two children's medical centers from August 2013 to August 2015, retrospective analyses were conducted for 950 boys with a mean age of 3.68±2.20(1/3～14)years. They underwent LPEC by the following three approaches: conventional two-port surgery group(n=387), single-site two-port surgery group(n=468)and single-site surgery group(n=95). Statistical analyses were conducted for clinical data and complications. Results Among 950 successfully operated cases, 1383 sides of patent processus vaginalis(PPV)were closed. And 288 cases(35.8%)had potential contralateral patent processus vaginalis(cPPV). Four patients with their internal rings closed during exploration were converted into scrotum incision procedure. No significant difference existed in operative duration among three groups( χ2=5.76, P=0.07). The median follow-up period was 16.5(8～32)months. No significant differences existed in clinical data and complications between two centers(P>0.05). In conventional two-port, single-site two-port and single-site surgery groups, cPPV were found in 122, 148 and 18 cases while retroperitoneal hematoma(RH)in 4, 2 and 0 cases, recurrences in 4, 4 and 2 cases, contralateral metachronous hernia or hydroceles in 0, 0 and 2 cases, postoperative umbilical infection in 1, 0 and 0 case respectively. Significant differences existed between single-site and other two groups in cPPVs and contralateral metachronous hydroceles(P<0.05). FLACC pain scores after 6-hour surgery were recorded and all scores were 0 — 2 points. A random survey of umbilical incision in 50 patients after 1 — year surgery showed no significant difference between single-site and single-site two-port surgical groups. Conclusion s LPEC is safe, feasible and effective in the treatment for pediatric hydroceles. Transumbilical single-site two-port surgery is more convenient. It offers the same incision cosmetics as single-site surgery, but superior to exploration of cPPV.

引言
1 材料与方法
2 结果
3 讨论

图1 3种穿刺器械。A:A中心采用磨钝的9号注射器针头; B:B中心采用的硬膜外穿刺针; C:单孔组采用的小儿疝针。图2三组操作通道位置。A:传统两孔组,B:单部位两孔组,C:单孔组。图3传统两孔组和单部位两孔组套线方法。A:穿刺内侧半圈,B:穿刺外侧半圈,操作钳将黑色丝线穿入涤纶线圈; C:收紧涤纶线圈退出皮肤外并带出腹腔内的结扎线。图4单孔组疝针穿刺方法。A:注水穿刺内侧半圈后将丝线留在腹腔内,B:注水穿刺外侧半圈,C:钩针钩线带出体外。图5三组术后伤口照片。A:传统两孔组,B:单部位两孔组,C:单孔组。图6残留PPV。A:单孔组1例对侧异时性鞘膜积液病例再手术时操作钳辅助下发现前次手术未发现的cPPV; B:1例复发病例再手术探查发现结扎线松脱后残留PPV。
Fig.1 Three puncture devices; Fig.2 Position of operation access for three approaches; Fig.3 LEPC technique between conventional two-port approach and single-site two-port approach; Fig.4 Puncture technique by hernia needle for single-port approach; Fig.5 Photos of postoperative wound of three approaches; Fig.6 Residual PPV

表1 两医疗中心患儿临床资料对比<br/>Table 1 Comparison of Clinical Data of Patients between Two Centers

表1 两医疗中心患儿临床资料对比
Table 1 Comparison of Clinical Data of Patients between Two Centers

表2 三组病例病变侧别情况[n(%)]<br/>Table 2 Affected sides of Three Groups[n(%)]

表2 三组病例病变侧别情况[n(%)]
Table 2 Affected sides of Three Groups[n(%)]

表3 三组患儿一般资料对比<br/>Table 3 Comparison of General Data of Patients between Three Approaches

表3 三组患儿一般资料对比
Table 3 Comparison of General Data of Patients between Three Approaches

1 Peng Y,Li C,Lin W,et al. Application of a Laparoscopic,Single-port,Double-needle Technique for Pediatric Hydroceles With Multiple Peritoneal Folds:A Trial From a Single-center 5 — Year Experience[J]. Urology,2015,85(6):1466 — 70. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2015.01.053.
2 Wang Z,Xu L,Chen Z,et al. Modified single-port minilaparoscopic extraperitoneal repair for pediatric hydrocele:a single-center experience with 279 surgeries[J]. World J Urol,2014, 32(6):1613 — 1618.DOI: 10.1007/s00345 — 014 — 1259 — 8.
3 Palmer LS,Rastinehad A. Incidence and concurrent laparoscopic repair of intra-abdominal testis and contralateral patent processus vaginalis[J]. J Urol,2008,72(2):297—299.DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.12.099.
4 杨晓东,吴杨,向波,等.腹腔镜辅助下鞘状突高位结扎术治疗儿童鞘膜积液327例[J].临床小儿外科杂志,2015,14(03): 223 — 225.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671 — 6353.2015.03.017.
5 黄澄如. 实用小儿泌尿外科学[M].第6版,北京:人民卫生出版社, 2006:394 — 397.
6 Naji H,Ingolfsson I,Isacson D,et al. Decision making in the management of hydroceles in infants and children[J]. Eur J Pediatr,2012,171(5):807 — 810.DOI: 10.1007/s00431 — 011 — 1628 — x.
7 Koivusalo AI,Korpela R,Wirtavuori K,et al. A single-blinded,randomized comparison of laparoscopic versus open hernia repair in children[J]. Pediatrics,2009,123(1):332 — 337.DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007 — 3752.
8 Chan KL,Hui WC,Tam PKH. Prospective randomized singlecenter,single-blind comparison of laparoscopic vs open repair of pediatric inguinal hernia[J]. Surg Endosc,2005,19(7):927 — 932.DOI: 10.1007/s00464 — 004 — 8224 — 3.
9 陈宏,毕允力,陆良生,等.单切口腹腔镜辅助腹膜外鞘状突未闭结扎术的学习曲线[J].临床小儿外科杂志,2016, 15(04): 332 — 335.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671 — 6353.2016.04.006.
10 Chan KL, Chan HY,Tam PK. Towards a near-zero recurrence rate in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair for pediatric patients of all ages[J]. J Pediatr Surg, 2007,42(12):1993 — 1997.DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.08.014.
11 Takehara H,Yakabe S,Kameoka K. Laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure for inguinal hernia in children:clinieal outcome of 972 repairs done in 3 pediatric surgiealinstitutions[J].J Pediatr Surg,2006,41(12):1999 — 2003.DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2006.08.032.
12 李索林,刘琳,杨晓锋. 腹腔镜技术诊治小儿腹股沟斜疝的现状与评价[J]. 中华小儿外科杂志.2014,35(6):406 — 409.DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253—3006.2014.06.002.
13 Liu W,Wu R,Du G. Single-port laparoscopic extraperitoneal repair of pediatric inguinal hernias and hydroceles by using modified Kirschner pin:a novel technique[J]. Hernia,2014,18(3):345 — 349. DOI:10.1007/s10029 — 013 — 1181 — 1189.
14 Yilmaz E,Afsarlar CE,Senel E,et al. A novel technique for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in children:single-port laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure assisted by an optical forceps[J]. PediatrSurgInt,2015,31(7):639 — 646. DOI:10.1007/s00383 — 015 — 3722 — z.
15 SarangaBharathi R,Arora M,Baskaran V. Minimal access surgery of pediatric inguinal hernias:a review[J]. SurgEndosc,2008,22(8):1751—1762.DOI: 10.1007/s00464 — 008 — 9846 — 7.
16 Montupet P,Esposito C. Fifteen years experience in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in pediatric patients. Results and considerations on a debated procedure[J]. Surg Endosc,2011, 25(2):450 — 453.DOI:10.1007/s00464 — 010 — 1188 — 1186.
17 Wulkan ML,Wiener ES,VanBalen N,et al. Laparoscopy through the open ipsilateral sac to evaluate presence of contralateral hernia[J]. J Pediatr Surg,1996,31(8):1174–1177. DOI:10.1016/S0022 — 3468(96)90112 — 8.

备注

引言

1 材料与方法

2 结果

3 讨论

期刊信息

备注

引言

1 材料与方法

2 结 果

3 讨 论

期刊信息

2 结果

3 讨论