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) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (06) : 474 -479. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2019.06.012

所属专题: 文献

论著

选择性痔上黏膜切除术、痔上黏膜环切术与外剥内扎术治疗中重度混合痔的效果比较
林庆国1, 孙友刚1, 刘平1,()   
  1. 1. 833699 新疆克拉玛依市独山子人民医院外一科
  • 收稿日期:2019-05-30 出版日期:2019-12-01
  • 通信作者: 刘平

Effect comparison of tissue-selecting therapy, procedure for prolapse and haemolxhoids and milligant-morgant hemorrhoidectom in the treatment of moderate-to-severe mixed hemorrhoids

Qingguo Lin1, Yougang Sun1, Ping Liu1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Surgery, Dushanzi People’s Hospital in Karamay City of Xinjiang, Karamay 833699, China
  • Received:2019-05-30 Published:2019-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Ping Liu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Liu Ping, Email:
引用本文:

林庆国, 孙友刚, 刘平. 选择性痔上黏膜切除术、痔上黏膜环切术与外剥内扎术治疗中重度混合痔的效果比较[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2019, 13(06): 474-479.

Qingguo Lin, Yougang Sun, Ping Liu. Effect comparison of tissue-selecting therapy, procedure for prolapse and haemolxhoids and milligant-morgant hemorrhoidectom in the treatment of moderate-to-severe mixed hemorrhoids[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(06): 474-479.

目的

比较吻合器痔上黏膜环切术(PPH)、外剥内扎术(M-M)与选择性痔上黏膜切除术(TST)治疗中重度混合痔的临床效果。

方法

回顾性分析2015年1月至2018年12月克拉玛依市独山子人民医院收治的675例中重度混合痔患者资料,按手术方式分为M-M组(238例)、PPH组(185例)、TST组(252例)。比较三组患者一般手术情况,术后疼痛、肛缘水肿、创面出血或渗血等并发症发生率,排便及创面愈合情况,术后1个月时肛门功能、术后6个月时肛门外观平整度及随访期内肛门失禁、肛门漏气漏液发生率。

结果

PPH组、TST组术中出血量、住院时间及住院费用、术后疼痛程度、创面愈合时间、恢复正常活动时间以及肛门水肿Ⅱ~Ⅳ度比例、部分失禁发生率、坠胀/排便感发生率均显著低于M-M组(P<0.05),TST组术中出血量、住院时间显著低于PPH组(P<0.05)。首次排便时间、大便情况分度Ⅲ度及肛门外观平整度Ⅲ度比例为TST组<PPH组<M-M组(P<0.05)。三组随访时间、复发率及无复发生存时间比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.771,P=0.680)。

结论

TST治疗中重度混合痔的治愈率与M-M、PPH相当,但在术中出血量、住院时间、术后排便、肛门外观平整度等方面优势更显著,值得临床推广。

Objective

To compare the clinical effects of milligant-morgant hemorrhoidectomy (M-M),procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) and tissue-selecting therapy (TST) in the treatment of moderate-to-severe mixed hemorrhoids.

Methods

Six hundred and seventy-five patients with moderate-to-severe mixed hemorrhoids who were admitted from January 2015 to December 2018 in Dushanzi People’s Hospital in Karamay City were divided into group M-M (238 cases), group PPH (185 cases) and group TST (252 cases) according to the surgical methods. The general surgery, postoperative pain, anal edge edema, wound hemorrhage or oozing, defecation and wound healing, incidence rate of postoperative complications, anal function at 1 month after surgery, anal appearance flatness at 6 months after surgery, incidence rates of anal incontinence and anal air and liquid leakage during follow-up were compared among the three groups.

Results

Compared to group M-M, the intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay and hospitalization cost, postoperative pain, wound healing time and recovery time, degree of anal edema, incidence of partial incontinence and defecation sensation in group PPH and group TST were significantly lower (P<0.05). The intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay in group TST were significantly lower than those in groupPPH (P<0.05). The first defecation time, the proportion of degree Ⅲ of stool condition and anal appearance flatness both showed group TST < group PPH < group M-M (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in follow-up time, recurrence rate and no-recurrence survival time among the three groups (χ2=0.771, P=0.680).

Conclusion

TST has similar cure rate as M-M and PPH in the treatment of moderate-to-severe mixed hemorrhoids, but it has more significant advantages in intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay and anal appearance flatness, so as to be worthy of clinical attention.

表1 三组中重度混合痔患者的基本资料比较
表2 三组中重度混合痔患者一般手术情况比较(±s
表3 三组中重度混合痔患者术后疼痛情况比较(±s
表4 三组中重度混合痔患者术后肛缘水肿情况比较[例(%)]
表5 三组中重度混合痔患者排便情况比较
表6 三组中重度混合痔患者术后创面愈合情况比较(d,±s
表7 三组中重度混合痔患者术后并发症发生率比较[例(%)]
表8 三组中重度混合痔患者术后肛门压力值比较(±s
表9 三组中重度混合痔患者术后6个月时肛门平整度比较[例(%)]
[1]
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/CD]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2018, 12(3): 188-191.
[2]
Lin HC, Luo HX, Zbar AP, et al. The tissue selecting technique (TST) versus the Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsing hemorrhoids: A retrospective case-control study[J]. Tech Coloproctol, 2014, 18(8): 739-744.
[3]
Leung A, Cheung T, Tung K, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating the short-term outcomes of transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization versus tissue-selecting technique[J]. Tech Coloproctol, 2017, 21(9): 737-743.
[4]
Cologne KG, Linnebur M, Senagore AJ. Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids complication solutions: repair of a completely closed off rectum[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2018, 61(6): 751.
[5]
阮宁, 陈志华, 林夏冰. 选择性痔上黏膜切除术与吻合器痔上黏膜环切钉合术治疗重度内痔的临床疗效对比[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2013, 16(7): 645-647.
[6]
路明, 刘扬, 温浩. 痔上黏膜环切术与选择性痔上黏膜切除术治疗Ⅲ度混合痔疗效及安全性临床对比分析[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2016, 36(12): 1310-1312.
[7]
美国结直肠外科医师协会标准化工作委员会, 丁义江, 皇甫少华, 等. 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.
[8]
国家中医药管理局. 中医病症诊断疗效标准[S]. 南京: 南京大学出版社, 1994: 133-134.
[9]
张东兴, 赵丙波. 非环形与传统痔上黏膜环形切除钉合术治疗重度环状内痔的疗效比较[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2016, 36(18): 4524-4525.
[10]
白金权, 李柏文. 吻合器痔上黏膜环形切除术治疗老年中重度内痔的临床效果[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2017, 37(23): 5904-5905.
[11]
高敏, 朱鹏, 唐云昊. 吻合器痔上黏膜环切术与改良痔环切术治疗环状混合痔的临床疗效比较[J]. 重庆医科大学学报, 2016, 41(12): 1294-1297.
[12]
鞠大闯. 选择性痔上黏膜切除术与痔上黏膜环切钉合术治疗痔的临床疗效比较[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2015, 18(12): 1266-1268.
[1] 帕丽旦·热吉甫, 姑丽尼格尔·吾不力哈斯木, 张媛, 杨武明, 路明. 四种手术方式治疗痔病的网状Meta分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2022, 16(01): 74-80.
[2] 帕丽旦·热吉甫, 张媛, 杨武明, 尼加提·塔西甫拉提, 康蓓, 韩瑞, 路明. 痔上黏膜环切钉合术与多普勒超声引导下痔动脉结扎术治疗痔病的Meta分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2021, 15(06): 459-465.
[3] 邹庆涛, 张洪贞, 尹作文, 喻军, 张鹏. 食管胃结合部腺癌根治术三种消化道重建方式的临床效果评价[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 545-548.
[4] 李光云, 田景中, 许建国, 于浩. 全腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术后食管空肠吻合口漏相关因素分析及吻合方式选择经验探讨[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 287-290.
[5] 郭宁, 邓天伟, 胡述静. 基于腹腔镜技术的不同吻合方式用于远端胃癌根治术的近中期随访比较[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 283-286.
[6] 王勋, 石荣, 王菁. 新型可自由选择调节开环的痔上黏膜手术暴露辅助器械在痔吻合器手术中应用的临床疗效研究[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(04): 319-325.
[7] 袁晨晨, 薛蓉, 金纯, 郑晨果, 周崇俊. 吻合器痔上黏膜适形切除钉合术治疗Ⅲ~Ⅳ度环状混合痔的临床疗效分析[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2022, 11(02): 120-126.
[8] 陈少虹, 李永富, 罗刚沣, 黄炫璋, 龚莉, 颜显欣, 马民. RPH联合MMH与PPH治疗重度混合痔的疗效对比的Meta分析[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2021, 10(06): 621-630.
[9] 胡邦, 邹齐, 陆立, 任东林. 《中国痔病诊疗指南(2020)》解读及其与欧美指南的对比[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2021, 10(06): 561-571.
[10] 王万里, 邓台燕, 樊文彬, 杜忠群. 痔上黏膜环形切除钉合术(PPH)再思考[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2021, 10(05): 514-519.
[11] 帕丽旦·热吉甫, 杨润清, 张媛, 杨武明, 路明. PPH术后吻合口狭窄危险因素分析[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2021, 10(05): 482-486.
[12] 高英杰, 王阳, 王丽红, 毕文静, 刘卫民. VWF基因突变导致混合痔术后大出血一例报告并文献复习[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 496-498.
[13] 张立, 田泽阳, 张海旺, 徐晨龙, 方多多, 倪秀茹. 选择性痔上黏膜吻合术与吻合器痔上黏膜环切术治疗重度混合痔的效果比较[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(09): 678-682.
[14] 张楠, 王洋, 周纪妹, 任建庄, 段旭华, 韩新巍, 邝东林. 经导管动脉栓塞治疗内痔破裂大出血一例[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2021, 09(04): 456-457.
[15] 李贞娟, 丁辉, 王艺, 胡珊珊, 白阳秋, 杨惠, 邝胜利, 张慧敏, 徐闪闪, 李修岭. 参照肛直线的内镜下套扎术治疗Ⅰ-Ⅲ度内痔临床效果研究[J]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2022, 09(02): 76-81.
阅读次数
全文


摘要