目的:探討腹股溝馬鞍疝無張力疝修補手術方式的選擇。方法:回顧性調查206例腹股溝馬鞍疝患者,其中行巴德網塞充填式修補術57例,普里靈疝裝置腹膜前間隙修補術149例,觀察兩種修補方式的手術時間、手術方式及要點、術后并發癥、恢復情況、平均住院日及復發率。結果:兩種方式修補的患者圍手術期均無死亡。手術時間、恢復情況、術后平均住院天數和并發癥兩種方式差異均無統計學意義(Pgt;0.05)。患者術后平均隨訪分別為(2.3±0.5)和(2.2±0.7)年,隨訪時間無統計學差異(Pgt;0.05)。普里靈疝裝置修補組的費用較巴德網塞組低。57例巴德網塞修補術后有2例復發,149例普里靈疝裝置腹膜前間隙修補術后無復發。結論:腹膜前間隙無張力疝修補術是腹股溝馬鞍疝的首選手術方式。
Objective The present study is to compare the quality of life and anxiety of patients with low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma who received different managements to guide clinical therapy and nursing. Methods Thiswas a cohort study. Patients with low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma were divided into observation group (puncture confirmed only) and surgery group (confirmed and surgery) according to their wishes, and patients’ survival quality and state of anxiety were compared by using Short-Form 36 Health Survey Scale (SF-36) and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) between the 2 groups during the follow up period. Results There was no significant difference in physical component summary (PCS) score between the 2 groups and different observation time points (P>0.05). The mental component summary (MCS) scores and SF-36 scores of the observation group and the surgery group were different (P<0.05), and the MCS scores and SF-36 scores were different at different time points (P<0.05). The HAMA scores of patients in the observation group and the surgery group were different (P<0.001), and the change of HAMA scores in the observation group and the surgery group were different (P=0.004), but the HAMA scores at different time points were similar (P=0.152). Conclusion Surgery can effectively reduce the anxiety and improve the MCS score and quality of life.