期刊文献+

隧道式拖线术治疗单纯性肛瘘的临床研究 被引量:62

Clinical research of thread-dragging through fistula method in treating patients with simple anorectal fistula
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:评价隧道式拖线术治疗单纯性肛瘘的疗效和安全性。方法:采用前瞻性、多中心、随机、对照的临床试验设计方案。244例高位和低位单纯性肛瘘患者分为治疗组和切开(挂线)法对照组。以愈合时间、治愈率、临床症状和生活质量积分等作为主要的观测指标;采用肛门直肠测压法进行安全性评价;并对两种手术方法的卫生经济学评价指标进行比较。结果:低位和高位单纯性肛瘘患者的治愈率在治疗组和对照组之间比较差异无统计学意义。低位单纯性肛瘘治疗组平均愈合时间为(22.26±8.67)d,对照组为(31.41±11.39)d;高位单纯性肛瘘治疗组平均愈合时间为(24.73±8.15)d,对照组为(32.20±12.60)d;两组比较均有统计学差异。低位和高位单纯性肛瘘治疗组患者临床症状积分除括约肌功能积分明显低于对照组外(P<0.05,P<0.01),其余各项症状积分和总积分两组比较均无统计学差异。低位单纯性肛瘘患者各项生活质量积分两组间比较均无明显差异;高位单纯性肛瘘治疗组生活质量括约肌功能积分和对治疗的信心积分均明显优于对照组(P<0.05),其余各项积分两组间比较则无统计学差异。卫生经济学评价结果显示,治疗组住院总费用要低于对照组(P<0.01)。低位和高位单纯性肛瘘治疗组肛管最大收缩压在治疗前后无明显变化;而对照组治疗后的肛管最大收缩压较治疗前有所降低,且较治疗组治疗后低,差异有统计学意义。结论:隧道式拖线术治疗单纯性肛瘘可以缩短病程、降低住院费用、提高患者生活质量,并能保护肛管括约肌的功能。 Objective, To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thread-dragging through fistula method in treating patients with simple anorectal fistula. Methods: In this multi-centered, prospective, and randomized controlled clinical trial, 244 patients with simple low or high anorectal fistula were randomly divided into study group (with the method of thread-dragging through fistula) and control group (with the method of incision or thread-drawing). The healing time and curative rate of anorectal fistula, and the integral calculus of clinical symptom and life quality evaluations before and after treatment were all examined. The maximal anal canal squeeze pressure was measured to compare the therapeutic safety between these two groups. The health economical benefits were also assessed to determine which therapeutic method was more economical. Results: The curative rate of simple low and high anorectal fistula were of no significant differences between the study group and the control group. The healing time of simple low anorectal fistula in the study group and the control group were (22.26 ± 8.67) d and (31.41 ± 11.39) d respectively, while the healing time of simple high anorectal fistula in the study group and the control group were (24.73 ± 8.15) d and (32.20 ± 12.60) d respectively, and there revealed significant differences between these two groups. Each integral calculus of clinical symptom evaluation in the study group was not obviously different from those in the control group besides the integral calculus of anal sphincter function. The integral calculus of life quality between the study group and the control group of simple low anorectal fistula had no significant differences. The integral calculus of anal sphincter function and confidence in treatment in the study group of high anorectal fistula were better than those in the control group. The hospitalization expense of the study group was remarkably lower than that of the control group. The maximal anal canal squeeze pressure in the study group after treatment was not reduced obviously as compared with that in the same group before treatment, while it was decreased significantly in the control group after treatment as compared with those in the same group before treatment and in the study group after treatment. Conclusion: The method of thread-dragging through fistula in treating simple low and high anorectal fistula can shorten the course of the disease, save the hospitalization expenses, improve the life quality of the patients, and protect the anal sphincter function.
出处 《中西医结合学报》 CAS 2006年第2期140-146,共7页 Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine
基金 上海市中医外科重点学科资助项目(No.T0304)
关键词 隧道式拖线术 肛瘘 中医肛肠手术 随机对照试验 治疗结果 thread-dragging through fistula anal fistula anorectal surgery (TCM) randomized controlled trials treatment outcome
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献25

  • 1刘爱华,刘纪崇.内痔发病机制的研究:托约功能下降学说[J].中国肛肠病杂志,1989,9(1):3-7. 被引量:6
  • 2胡伯虎 李宁汉.实用痔瘘学[M].北京:北京科学技术出版社,1991.333-334.
  • 3[1]Rao SS. Manometric evaluation of defecation disorders:Part II. Fecal incontinence [J]. Gastroenterologist, 1997; 5(2)∶99
  • 4[2]Kreis ME, Jehle EC, Starlinger MJ, et al.The Favre system for anorectal manometry: comparison with other manometry systems in vitro and in healthy volunteers [J]? Scand J Gastroenterol, 1997; 32(9)∶888
  • 5[3]Buch E, Alos R, Solana A, et al.Can digital examination substitute anorectal manometry for the evaluation of anal canal pressures [J]? Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 1998; 90(2)∶85
  • 6[4]Sentovich SM, Blatchford GJ, Rivela LJ, et al.Diagnosing anal sphincter injury with transanal ultrasound and manometry [J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 1997; 40(12)∶1430
  • 7[5]Fenner DE, Kriegshauser JS, Lee HH, et al.Anatomic and physiologic measurements of the internal and external anal sphincters in normal females [J]. Obstet Gynecol, 1998; 91(3)∶369
  • 8[6]Ho YH, Tan M. Ambulatory anorectal manometric findings in patients before and after haemorrhoidectom [J]. Int J Colorectal Dis, 1997; 12(5)∶296
  • 9[7]Poen AC, Felt Bersma RJ, Strijers RL, et al.Third degree obstetric perineal tear:long term clinical and functional results after primary repair [J]. Br J Surg, 1998; 85(10)∶1433
  • 10[8]Heikkinen M, Rintala R, Luukkonen P. Long term anal sphincter performance after surgery for Hirschsprung's disease [J]. J Pediatr Surg,1997; 32(10)∶1443

共引文献48

同被引文献509

引证文献62

二级引证文献495

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部