切开挂线术与纵行切开术治疗肛门狭窄38例

Efficacy Observation Between Incision Seton Therapy and Longitudinal Otomy for Anal Stenosis

目的:比较切开挂线术与纵行切开术治疗肛门狭窄的临床效果,分析探讨治疗肛门狭窄的最佳疗效。方法:将75例肛门狭窄患者随机分成I组和II组,I组用切开挂线治疗,II组用纵行切开术治疗,对2组患者的术后疗效、愈合时间、术后后遗症、复发率等进行观察分析。结果:切开挂线术组治愈率为76.3%,好转率21.1%,无效率2.6%,总有效率97.4%;纵行切开术组治愈率为48.7%,好转率35.1%,无效率16.2%,总有效率83.8%;。结论:切开挂线术组治疗肛门狭窄具有损伤小、出血少、痛苦轻、创面愈合快、感染率低、术后复发率低并且无大便失禁等后遗症等特点,更适合对疼痛忍耐性差的老、幼患者。

Objective To analyze and explore the best choice for curing anal stenosis by comparing the clinical efficacy of incision seton therapy and longitudinal otomy. Methods 75 cases of anal stenosis patients were randomized into 2 groups. For group I, incision setontherapy was applied, while longitudinal otomy was for group II, so as to observe and analyze the postoperative efficacy, healing time, postoperative complication and recurrence rate of the 2 groups of patients. Results The curative rate for those who underwent incision seton therapy was 76.3%, the improvement rate 21.1%, ineffective rate 2.6% and the total effective rate reaches 97.4%; comparatively, the curative rate for longitudinal otomy was 48.7%, the improvement rate 35.1%, ineffective rate 16.2% and the total effective rate was 83.8%. Conclusion For old and young anal stenosis patients who have low tolerance of pain, incision seton therapy is more preferable due to its characteristics of less injury, less bleeding, light suffering, quick recovery, low infection rate and recurrence rate, and no sequela like fecal incontinence.