AIM: To compare the clinical efficacies of two surgical procedures for hemorrhoid rectal prolapse with outlet obstruction-induced constipation.METHODS: One hundred eight inpatients who underwent surgery for outlet obs...AIM: To compare the clinical efficacies of two surgical procedures for hemorrhoid rectal prolapse with outlet obstruction-induced constipation.METHODS: One hundred eight inpatients who underwent surgery for outlet obstructive constipation caused by internal rectal prolapse and circumferential hemorrhoids at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from June 2012 to June 2013 were prospectively included in the study.The patients with rectal prolapse hemorrhoids with outlet obstructioninduced constipation were randomly divided into two groups to undergo either a procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids(PPH)(n = 54) or conventional surgery(n = 54; control group).Short-term(operative time,postoperative hospital stay,postoperative urinary retention,postoperative perianal edema,and postoperative pain) and long-term(postoperative anal stenosis,postoperative sensory anal incontinence,postoperative recurrence,and postoperative difficulty in defecation) clinical effects were compared between the two groups.The short- and long-term efficacies of the two procedures were determined.RESULTS: In terms of short-term clinical effects,operative time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the PPH group than in the control group(24.36 ± 5.16 min vs 44.27 ± 6.57 min,2.1 ± 1.4 d vs 3.6 ± 2.3 d,both P < 0.01).The incidence of postoperative urinary retention was higher in the PPH group than in the control group,but the difference was not statistically significant(48.15% vs 37.04%).Theincidence of perianal edema was significantly lower in the PPH group(11.11% vs 42.60%,P < 0.05).The visual analogue scale scores at 24 h after surgery,first defecation,and one week after surgery were significantly lower in the PPH group(2.9 ± 0.9 vs 8.3 ± 1.1,2.0 ± 0.5 vs 6.5 ± 0.8,and 1.7 ± 0.5 vs 5.0 ± 0.7,respectively,all P < 0.01).With regard to long-term clinical effects,the incidence of anal stenosis was lower in the PPH group than in the control group,but the difference was not significant(1.85% vs 5.56%).The incidence of sensory anal incontinence was significantly lower in the PPH group(3.70% vs 12.96%,P < 0.05).The incidences of recurrent internal rectal prolapse and difficulty in defecation were lower in the PPH group than in the control group,but the differences were not significant(11.11% vs 16.67% and 12.96% vs 24.07%,respectively).CONCLUSION: PPH is superior to the traditional surgery in the management of outlet obstructive constipation caused by internal rectal prolapse with circumferential hemorrhoids.展开更多
BACKGROUND Hemorrhoidal prolapse is a common benign disease with a high incidence.The treatment procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids(PPH)remains an operative method used for internal hemorrhoid prolapse.Although it ...BACKGROUND Hemorrhoidal prolapse is a common benign disease with a high incidence.The treatment procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids(PPH)remains an operative method used for internal hemorrhoid prolapse.Although it is related to less posoperative pain,faster recovery and shorter hospital stays,the postoperative recurrence rate is higher than that of the Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy(MMH).We have considered that recurrence could be due to shortage of the pulling-up effect.This issue may be overcome by using lower purse-string sutures[modified-PPH(M-PPH)].AIM To compare the therapeutic effects and the patients’satisfaction after M-PPH,PPH and MMH.METHODS This retrospective cohort study included 1163 patients(M-PPH,461;original PPH,321;MMH,381)with severe hemorrhoids(stage III/IV)who were admitted to The 2nd Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children’s Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from 2012 to 2014.Early postoperative complications,efficacy,postoperative anal dysfunction and patient satisfaction were compared among the three groups.Established criteria were used to assess short-and long-term postoperative complications.A visual analog scale was used to evaluate postoperative pain.Follow-up was conducted 5 years postoperatively.RESULT Length of hospital stay and operating time were significantly longer in the MMH group(8.05±2.50 d,19.98±4.21 min;P<0.0001)than in other groups.The incidence of postoperative anastomotic bleeding was significantly lower after MPPH than after PPH or MMH(1.9%,5.1%and 3.7%;n=9,16 and 14;respectively).There was a significantly higher rate of sensation of rectal tenesmus after M-PPH than after MMH or PPH(15%,8%and 10%;n=69,30 and 32;respectively).There was a significantly lower rate of recurrence after M-PPH than after PPH(8.7%and 18.8%,n=40 and 61;P<0.0001).The incidence of postoperative anal incontinence differed significantly only between the MMH and M-PPH groups(1.3%and 4.3%,n=5 and 20;P=0.04).Patient satisfaction was significantly greater after M-PPH than after other surgeries.CONCLUSION M-PPH has many advantages for severe hemorrhoids(Goligher stage III/IV),with a low rate of anastomotic bleeding and recurrence and a very high rate of patient satisfaction.展开更多
Objective:To summarize the experience without hemorrhage after PPH of 218 patients with mixed hemorrhoid.Methods:PPH(Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids)was performed routinely.During operation,it is paid attention...Objective:To summarize the experience without hemorrhage after PPH of 218 patients with mixed hemorrhoid.Methods:PPH(Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids)was performed routinely.During operation,it is paid attention that the hemorrhoid artery should be completely mutilated,the anastomat should be squeezed before and after the anastomosis,the anastomosis should be carefully examined,the hemostasis should be completely performed,and relevant hemostasis measures should be taken after the operation.Results:None of the 218 patients had postoperative hemorrhage.Conclusion:Relevant measures can be taken after operation to prevent the occurrence of postoperative hemorrhage.展开更多
BACKGROUND Internal rectal prolapse(IRP)is one of the most common causes of obstructive constipation.The incidence of IRP in women is approximately three times that in men.IRP is mainly treated by surgery,which can be...BACKGROUND Internal rectal prolapse(IRP)is one of the most common causes of obstructive constipation.The incidence of IRP in women is approximately three times that in men.IRP is mainly treated by surgery,which can be divided into two categories:Abdominal procedures and perineal procedures.This study offers a better procedure for the treatment of IRP.AIM To compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic integral pelvic floor/ligament repair(IPFLR)combined with a procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids(PPH)and the laparoscopic IPFLR alone in the treatment of IRP in women.METHODS This study collected the clinical data of 130 female patients with IRP who underwent surgery from January 2012 to October 2014.The patients were divided into groups A and B.Group A had 63 patients who underwent laparoscopic IPFLR alone,and group B had 67 patients who underwent the laparoscopic IPFLR combined with PPH.The degree of internal rectal prolapse(DIRP),Wexner constipation scale(WCS)score,Wexner incontinence scale(WIS)score,and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index(GIQLI)score were compared between groups and within groups before surgery and 6 mo and 2 years after surgery.RESULTS All laparoscopic surgeries were successful.The general information,number of bowel movements before surgery,DIRP,GIQLI score,WIS score,and WCS score before surgery were not significantly different between the two groups(all P>0.05).The WCS score,WIS score,GIQLI score,and DIRP in each group 6 mo,and 2 years after surgery were significantly better than before surgery(P<0.001).In group A,the DIRP and WCS score gradually improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery(P<0.001),and the GIQLI score progressively improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery(P<0.05).In group B,the DIRP,WCS score and WIS score significantly improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery(P<0.05),and the GIQLI score 2 years after surgery was significantly higher than that 6 mo after surgery(P<0.05).The WCS score,WIS score,GIQLI score,and DIRP of group B were significantly better than those of group A 6 mo and 2 years after surgery(all P<0.001,Bonferroni)except DIRP at 2 years after surgery.There was a significant difference in the recurrence rate of IRP between the two groups 6 mo after surgery(P=0.011).There was no significant difference in postoperative grade I-III complications between the two groups(P=0.822).CONCLUSION Integral theory–guided laparoscopic IPFLR combined with PPH has a higher cure rate and a better clinical efficacy than laparoscopic IPFLR alone.展开更多
目的:探究耳穴埋豆辅助舒芬太尼对腰麻下痔上黏膜环切术(PPH)术后的影响。方法:选取芜湖市中医医院2020年1~6月收治的100例腰麻下PPH术患者作为研究对象,按随机数表法分为对照组和观察组各50例。对照组单纯采用舒芬太尼静脉镇痛,观察组...目的:探究耳穴埋豆辅助舒芬太尼对腰麻下痔上黏膜环切术(PPH)术后的影响。方法:选取芜湖市中医医院2020年1~6月收治的100例腰麻下PPH术患者作为研究对象,按随机数表法分为对照组和观察组各50例。对照组单纯采用舒芬太尼静脉镇痛,观察组采用耳穴埋豆辅助舒芬太尼静脉镇痛,比较两组术后自控镇痛的使用情况、焦虑自评量表(SAS)评分、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、满意度评分、伯格曼舒适度量表(BCS)评分以及术后呕吐、尿潴留等发生率。结果:观察组术后24 h镇痛有效按压次数和舒芬太尼总消耗量均少于对照组(P<0.05)。两组术后SAS评分均低于术前(P<0.05),且观察组下降幅度优于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组术后6、12、24 h VAS评分均低于对照组,而BCS评分均高于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组术后满意度评分高于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组术后恶心呕吐、尿潴留以及插导尿管发生率均低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:耳穴埋豆辅助舒芬太尼,有减轻腰麻下PPH术后疼痛的趋势,能减少术后舒芬太尼使用量,有利于减少术后恶心呕吐,降低尿潴留发生率,提高患者术后舒适度与满意度,值得推广。展开更多
目的探讨痔上黏膜环形切除订合术(procedure for prolapsed and hemorrhoids,PPH)加外痔切除术的临床疗效。方法治疗组48例采用PPH加外痔切除术,对照组48例采用外剥内扎术。结果治疗组手术时间、术后各合并症评分少于对照组,两组比较差...目的探讨痔上黏膜环形切除订合术(procedure for prolapsed and hemorrhoids,PPH)加外痔切除术的临床疗效。方法治疗组48例采用PPH加外痔切除术,对照组48例采用外剥内扎术。结果治疗组手术时间、术后各合并症评分少于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗组手术疗效与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗组住院费用多于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 PPH加外痔切除术临床疗效显著。展开更多
文摘AIM: To compare the clinical efficacies of two surgical procedures for hemorrhoid rectal prolapse with outlet obstruction-induced constipation.METHODS: One hundred eight inpatients who underwent surgery for outlet obstructive constipation caused by internal rectal prolapse and circumferential hemorrhoids at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from June 2012 to June 2013 were prospectively included in the study.The patients with rectal prolapse hemorrhoids with outlet obstructioninduced constipation were randomly divided into two groups to undergo either a procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids(PPH)(n = 54) or conventional surgery(n = 54; control group).Short-term(operative time,postoperative hospital stay,postoperative urinary retention,postoperative perianal edema,and postoperative pain) and long-term(postoperative anal stenosis,postoperative sensory anal incontinence,postoperative recurrence,and postoperative difficulty in defecation) clinical effects were compared between the two groups.The short- and long-term efficacies of the two procedures were determined.RESULTS: In terms of short-term clinical effects,operative time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the PPH group than in the control group(24.36 ± 5.16 min vs 44.27 ± 6.57 min,2.1 ± 1.4 d vs 3.6 ± 2.3 d,both P < 0.01).The incidence of postoperative urinary retention was higher in the PPH group than in the control group,but the difference was not statistically significant(48.15% vs 37.04%).Theincidence of perianal edema was significantly lower in the PPH group(11.11% vs 42.60%,P < 0.05).The visual analogue scale scores at 24 h after surgery,first defecation,and one week after surgery were significantly lower in the PPH group(2.9 ± 0.9 vs 8.3 ± 1.1,2.0 ± 0.5 vs 6.5 ± 0.8,and 1.7 ± 0.5 vs 5.0 ± 0.7,respectively,all P < 0.01).With regard to long-term clinical effects,the incidence of anal stenosis was lower in the PPH group than in the control group,but the difference was not significant(1.85% vs 5.56%).The incidence of sensory anal incontinence was significantly lower in the PPH group(3.70% vs 12.96%,P < 0.05).The incidences of recurrent internal rectal prolapse and difficulty in defecation were lower in the PPH group than in the control group,but the differences were not significant(11.11% vs 16.67% and 12.96% vs 24.07%,respectively).CONCLUSION: PPH is superior to the traditional surgery in the management of outlet obstructive constipation caused by internal rectal prolapse with circumferential hemorrhoids.
文摘BACKGROUND Hemorrhoidal prolapse is a common benign disease with a high incidence.The treatment procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids(PPH)remains an operative method used for internal hemorrhoid prolapse.Although it is related to less posoperative pain,faster recovery and shorter hospital stays,the postoperative recurrence rate is higher than that of the Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy(MMH).We have considered that recurrence could be due to shortage of the pulling-up effect.This issue may be overcome by using lower purse-string sutures[modified-PPH(M-PPH)].AIM To compare the therapeutic effects and the patients’satisfaction after M-PPH,PPH and MMH.METHODS This retrospective cohort study included 1163 patients(M-PPH,461;original PPH,321;MMH,381)with severe hemorrhoids(stage III/IV)who were admitted to The 2nd Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children’s Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from 2012 to 2014.Early postoperative complications,efficacy,postoperative anal dysfunction and patient satisfaction were compared among the three groups.Established criteria were used to assess short-and long-term postoperative complications.A visual analog scale was used to evaluate postoperative pain.Follow-up was conducted 5 years postoperatively.RESULT Length of hospital stay and operating time were significantly longer in the MMH group(8.05±2.50 d,19.98±4.21 min;P<0.0001)than in other groups.The incidence of postoperative anastomotic bleeding was significantly lower after MPPH than after PPH or MMH(1.9%,5.1%and 3.7%;n=9,16 and 14;respectively).There was a significantly higher rate of sensation of rectal tenesmus after M-PPH than after MMH or PPH(15%,8%and 10%;n=69,30 and 32;respectively).There was a significantly lower rate of recurrence after M-PPH than after PPH(8.7%and 18.8%,n=40 and 61;P<0.0001).The incidence of postoperative anal incontinence differed significantly only between the MMH and M-PPH groups(1.3%and 4.3%,n=5 and 20;P=0.04).Patient satisfaction was significantly greater after M-PPH than after other surgeries.CONCLUSION M-PPH has many advantages for severe hemorrhoids(Goligher stage III/IV),with a low rate of anastomotic bleeding and recurrence and a very high rate of patient satisfaction.
文摘Objective:To summarize the experience without hemorrhage after PPH of 218 patients with mixed hemorrhoid.Methods:PPH(Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids)was performed routinely.During operation,it is paid attention that the hemorrhoid artery should be completely mutilated,the anastomat should be squeezed before and after the anastomosis,the anastomosis should be carefully examined,the hemostasis should be completely performed,and relevant hemostasis measures should be taken after the operation.Results:None of the 218 patients had postoperative hemorrhage.Conclusion:Relevant measures can be taken after operation to prevent the occurrence of postoperative hemorrhage.
基金Supported by Medical Science and Technology Project of Henan Province,China,No.2011030031.
文摘BACKGROUND Internal rectal prolapse(IRP)is one of the most common causes of obstructive constipation.The incidence of IRP in women is approximately three times that in men.IRP is mainly treated by surgery,which can be divided into two categories:Abdominal procedures and perineal procedures.This study offers a better procedure for the treatment of IRP.AIM To compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic integral pelvic floor/ligament repair(IPFLR)combined with a procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids(PPH)and the laparoscopic IPFLR alone in the treatment of IRP in women.METHODS This study collected the clinical data of 130 female patients with IRP who underwent surgery from January 2012 to October 2014.The patients were divided into groups A and B.Group A had 63 patients who underwent laparoscopic IPFLR alone,and group B had 67 patients who underwent the laparoscopic IPFLR combined with PPH.The degree of internal rectal prolapse(DIRP),Wexner constipation scale(WCS)score,Wexner incontinence scale(WIS)score,and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index(GIQLI)score were compared between groups and within groups before surgery and 6 mo and 2 years after surgery.RESULTS All laparoscopic surgeries were successful.The general information,number of bowel movements before surgery,DIRP,GIQLI score,WIS score,and WCS score before surgery were not significantly different between the two groups(all P>0.05).The WCS score,WIS score,GIQLI score,and DIRP in each group 6 mo,and 2 years after surgery were significantly better than before surgery(P<0.001).In group A,the DIRP and WCS score gradually improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery(P<0.001),and the GIQLI score progressively improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery(P<0.05).In group B,the DIRP,WCS score and WIS score significantly improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery(P<0.05),and the GIQLI score 2 years after surgery was significantly higher than that 6 mo after surgery(P<0.05).The WCS score,WIS score,GIQLI score,and DIRP of group B were significantly better than those of group A 6 mo and 2 years after surgery(all P<0.001,Bonferroni)except DIRP at 2 years after surgery.There was a significant difference in the recurrence rate of IRP between the two groups 6 mo after surgery(P=0.011).There was no significant difference in postoperative grade I-III complications between the two groups(P=0.822).CONCLUSION Integral theory–guided laparoscopic IPFLR combined with PPH has a higher cure rate and a better clinical efficacy than laparoscopic IPFLR alone.
文摘目的:探究耳穴埋豆辅助舒芬太尼对腰麻下痔上黏膜环切术(PPH)术后的影响。方法:选取芜湖市中医医院2020年1~6月收治的100例腰麻下PPH术患者作为研究对象,按随机数表法分为对照组和观察组各50例。对照组单纯采用舒芬太尼静脉镇痛,观察组采用耳穴埋豆辅助舒芬太尼静脉镇痛,比较两组术后自控镇痛的使用情况、焦虑自评量表(SAS)评分、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、满意度评分、伯格曼舒适度量表(BCS)评分以及术后呕吐、尿潴留等发生率。结果:观察组术后24 h镇痛有效按压次数和舒芬太尼总消耗量均少于对照组(P<0.05)。两组术后SAS评分均低于术前(P<0.05),且观察组下降幅度优于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组术后6、12、24 h VAS评分均低于对照组,而BCS评分均高于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组术后满意度评分高于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组术后恶心呕吐、尿潴留以及插导尿管发生率均低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:耳穴埋豆辅助舒芬太尼,有减轻腰麻下PPH术后疼痛的趋势,能减少术后舒芬太尼使用量,有利于减少术后恶心呕吐,降低尿潴留发生率,提高患者术后舒适度与满意度,值得推广。
文摘目的探讨痔上黏膜环形切除订合术(procedure for prolapsed and hemorrhoids,PPH)加外痔切除术的临床疗效。方法治疗组48例采用PPH加外痔切除术,对照组48例采用外剥内扎术。结果治疗组手术时间、术后各合并症评分少于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗组手术疗效与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗组住院费用多于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 PPH加外痔切除术临床疗效显著。
