切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普通外科学文献(电子版) ›› 2018, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (03) : 188 -191. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2018.03.009

所属专题: 文献

论著

选择性痔上黏膜吻合术联合外剥内扎术对混合痔患者肛肠动力恢复及复发的影响
刘伟1,()   
  1. 1. 271000 泰安,山东省泰安市泰山区人民医院普外科
  • 收稿日期:2017-05-23 出版日期:2018-06-01
  • 通信作者: 刘伟

Effect of mixed hemorrhoid after tissue-selecting therapy stapler combined with Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy on recovery and recurrence of anorectal motility in mixed hemorrhoid patients

Wei Liu1,()   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, People’s Hospital of Taishan District, Tai’an 271000, China
  • Received:2017-05-23 Published:2018-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Wei Liu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Liu Wei, Email:
引用本文:

刘伟. 选择性痔上黏膜吻合术联合外剥内扎术对混合痔患者肛肠动力恢复及复发的影响[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2018, 12(03): 188-191.

Wei Liu. Effect of mixed hemorrhoid after tissue-selecting therapy stapler combined with Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy on recovery and recurrence of anorectal motility in mixed hemorrhoid patients[J/OL]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2018, 12(03): 188-191.

目的

探讨选择性痔上黏膜吻合术(TST)联合外剥内扎术治疗混合痔患者的疗效,以及该术式对患者肛肠动力恢复及复发的影响。

方法

选择2014年12月至2016年12月泰安市泰山区人民医院诊治的混合痔患者65例,依据治疗方法分为对照组(33例,给予外剥内扎术治疗)和联合组(32例,外剥内扎术+TST术治疗),分别于术前、术后6个月消化道压力监测仪测定肛肠动力,包括肛管高压区长度(HPZ)、静息压(ARP)、最大收缩压(MSP)水平;随访6个月,统计分析两组患者疗效、并发症、复发情况。

结果

两组均无手术失败病例,对照组手术时间明显低于联合组,对照组术中出血量明显高于联合组,差异有统计学意义(t=5.627、14.939,均P<0.001);联合组和对照组患者治疗有效率分别为93.75%(30/32)、87.88%(29/33),差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.513,P=0.469);两组术前肛肠动力水平差异无统计学意义,但术后6个月比较,联合组术后HPZ、ARP、MSP水平显著高于对照组(χ2=5.791、5.120、4.978,均P<0.01);术后6个月时,联合组的并发症发生率、复发率明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.447、5.107,P=0.035、0.024)。

结论

与外剥内扎术比较,TST联合外剥内扎术治疗混合痔患者疗效确切,可有效减少并发症的发生,有利于肛肠动力恢复及预防复发,值得临床作进一步推广。

Objective

To investigate the curative effect of tissue-selecting therapy stapler (TST) combined with Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in mixed hemorrhoids patients, and the influences on anorectal motility recovery and recurrence.

Methods

From December 2014 to December 2016, sixty-five cases of mixed hemorrhoids diagnosed by People’s Hospital of Taishan District were selected. According to the treatment methods, they were divided into control group (33 cases, underwent Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy) and combined group (32 cases, underwent Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy+TST). The anorectal motility levels, including length of high pressure zone (HPZ), anal anal resting pressure (ARP), maximums systolic pressure (MSP), were measured at preoperation and 6 months after the operation. The curative effect, complications and recurrence between the two groups were statistically analyzed after 6 months of follow-up.

Results

There was no surgical failure in the two groups. Operation time of the control group was significantly less than that of the combined group, the intraoperative bleeding of the control group was significantly higher than that in the combined group, with statistically significant differences (t=5.627, 14.939, both P<0.001). The effective rates of the combined group and the control group were 93.75% (30/32), 87.88% (29/33), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (χ2=1.513, P=0.469). There was no significant difference in anorectal motility between the two groups before operation. But after 6 months, the levels of HPZ, ARP and MSP in the combined group were significantly higher than those in the control group (χ2=5.791, 5.120, 4.978, all P<0.01). And 6 months after operation, the complication rate and recurrence rate in the combined group were significantly lower (χ2=4.447, 5.107, P=0.035, 0.024).

Conclusions

Compared with Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy, TST combined with Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy is curative for the mixed hemorrhoids patients. It can effectively reduce the incidence of complications, prevent recurrence, is good for anorectal dynamic recovery, and worthy of further promotion in clinical practice.

表1 两组混合痔患者的基本临床资料比较
表2 两组混合痔患者手术前后HPZ、ARP、MSP水平比较(±s
[1]
Seheyer M, Antonietti E, Rollinger G, et al. Hemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) and rectoanal repair(RAR) : retrospective analysis of 408 patients in a single center[J]. Teeh Coolproctol, 2015, 19(1): 5.
[2]
王环,丁永红,张丽. RPH配合传统外剥内扎法治疗混合痔患者的临床效果观察[J]. 中国社区医师, 2016, 32(22): 64-65.
[3]
戢敏,杜勇军,陈敏, 等. TST术治疗混合痔的临床疗效观察[J]. 重庆医学, 2013, 42(8): 942-943.
[4]
美国结直肠外科医师协会标准化工作委员会. 痔诊断和治疗指南(2010修订版)[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2012, 11(3): 243-247.
[5]
陈二林,樊勇. 吻合器痔上黏膜环切钉合术治疗混合痔206例[J/CD]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2017, 11(5): 346-348.
[6]
Huang HX, Yao YB, Tang Y. Application of 'tying, binding and fixing operation’ in surgical treatment of severe mixed hemorrhoids[J]. Exp Ther Med, 2016, 12(2): 1022-1028.
[7]
张曦文. 选择性痔上黏膜吻合术与吻合器痔上黏膜环切术治疗混合痔的疗效比较[J]. 医学临床研究, 2015, 32(8): 1579-1581.
[8]
Tanaka S, Toyonaga T, Morita Y, et al. Feasibility and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for lower rectal tumors with hemorrhoids[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2016, 22(27): 6268-6275.
[9]
夏羽齐. 不同术式治疗混合痔术后肛门动力学改变情况比较[J]. 齐齐哈尔医学院学报, 2015, 36(30): 4554-4556.
[10]
Lu M, Shi GY, Wang GQ, et al. Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy with anal cushion suspension and partial internal sphincter resection for circumferential mixed hemorrhoids[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2013, 19(30): 5011-5015.
[11]
王启,陈会林,刘铫, 等. 选择性痔上黏膜切除术治疗混合痔60例[J]. 中国中西医结合外科杂志, 2015, 21(1): 54-56.
[12]
Lu M, Yang B, Liu Y, et al. Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids vs traditional surgery for outlet obstructive constipation[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2015, 21(26): 8178-8183.
[13]
戢敏,杜勇军,唐太春, 等. TST联合外剥内扎术治疗混合痔的临床观察[J]. 实用中西医结合临床, 2013, 13(3): 10-12.
[14]
张全辉,邓永文,姚玉乔. 改良TST术治疗Ⅲ-Ⅳ度混合痔59例的疗效[J]. 实用临床医学, 2016, 17(7): 53-54, 56.
[15]
Wang ZG, Zhang Y, Zeng XD, et al. Clinical observations on the treatment of prolapsing hemorrhoids with tissue selecting therapy[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2015, 21(8): 2490-2496.
[16]
王钟焰,杨瑞琦,刘一迪, 等. 比较混合痔TST术与PPH术对肛肠动力学影响及临床意义[J]. 中国农村卫生, 2015, 8(3): 56-57.
[17]
唐力,霍斌,王家凯. 加强荷包缝合TST术与PPH术联合外剥内扎治疗重度混合痔的疗效对比[J]. 世界中医药, 2016, 11(B06): 1712-1713.
[18]
杨向东,余腾江,理习阳, 等. TST联合外剥内扎术预防环状混合痔术后肛缘水肿的临床观察(附100例报告)[J]. 结直肠肛门外科, 2013, 19(1): 36-38.
[1] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[2] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[3] 谢田伟, 庞于樊, 吴丽. 超声引导下不同消融术对甲状腺良性结节体积缩减率、复发率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 80-83.
[4] 张钊, 骆成玉, 张树琦, 何平, 李旭斌. 不同术式治疗早期乳腺癌的效果及并发症发生率、复发率比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 494-497.
[5] 曾繁利, 齐秩凯, 杨贺庆. 两种经Glisson蒂鞘解剖路径肝切除术治疗原发性肝癌的肿瘤学疗效及风险比对[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 525-527.
[6] 高建新, 王啸飞, 于淼, 路夷平. 局部进展期直肠癌新辅助治疗后行ISR术远切缘距离的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 539-543.
[7] 丁志翔, 于鹏, 段绍斌. 血浆BRAF基因检测对腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术中行幽门淋巴结清扫的指导价值[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 570-573.
[8] 李伟, 宋子健, 赖衍成, 周睿, 吴涵, 邓龙昕, 陈锐. 人工智能应用于前列腺癌患者预后预测的研究现状及展望[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 541-546.
[9] 皮尔地瓦斯·麦麦提玉素甫, 李慧灵, 艾克拜尔·艾力, 李赞林, 王志, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 生物补片修补巨大复发性腹壁切口疝临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 624-628.
[10] 周艳, 李盈, 周小兵, 程发辉, 何恒正. 不同类型补片联合Nissen 胃底折叠术修补食管裂孔疝的疗效及复发潜在危险因素[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 528-533.
[11] 闫亚飞, 范学圣, 张舰, 吴勇. 经腹腹膜前疝修补术治疗复发腹股沟疝的临床效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 552-556.
[12] 公宇, 廖媛, 尚梅. 肝细胞癌TACE术后复发影响因素及预测模型建立[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 818-824.
[13] 焦振东, 惠鹏, 金上博. 三维可视化结合ICG显像技术在腹腔镜肝切除术治疗复发性肝癌中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 859-864.
[14] 杭丽, 张耀辉, 孙文恺. 参菝抗瘤液对结直肠腺瘤性息肉术后肠道功能、炎症指标及复发情况的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(05): 413-416.
[15] 郭曌蓉, 王歆光, 刘毅强, 何英剑, 王立泽, 杨飏, 汪星, 曹威, 谷重山, 范铁, 李金锋, 范照青. 不同亚型乳腺叶状肿瘤的临床病理特征及预后危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 524-532.
阅读次数
全文


摘要