吻合器痔环切术与传统外剥内扎术治疗环状痔的临床效果对照分析

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (15)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (38 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract ObjectiveTo compare the different of effects on Annular hemorrhoids by PPH or Milligan-Morgan.Methods Sixty patientswith circular hemorrhoidswho were admitted to our hospital from June 2015 to September 2017 and were to be treated were selected as research objects,and were divided into control group and observation group by random number tablemethod,with 30 cases in each group.The control group was treated with Milligan-Morgan operation,while the observation group was treated with PPH operation.To evaluate the therapeutic effect of the two groups,and to evaluate the pain degree of the two groups after treatment(1,3 and 5 d)by visual analogue scale(VAS),at the same time,to compare the situation in treatment(intraoperative blood loss,operation duration)and postoperative complications.ResultsThe cure rate of patients in the observation group was higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).On the first day after surgery,therewas no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups(P＞0.05).On the 3rdand 5thday after operation,the VAS score of the observed patientswas significantly lower than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).The intraoperative blood loss in the observation group was significantly less than that in the control group,and the operation time was significantly shorter than that in the control group,the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).The incidence of postoperative complications in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group(P＜0.05).ConclusionThe PPH has better advantage in efficacy,complications,and patients can have faster recovery and less pain than Milligan-Morgan surgery.

Key words： PPH Milligan-Morgan Annular hemorrhoids Efficacy Comparison

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	FU Yue-quan
	ZHOU Jin-liang
	HOU Hua-sen
	LIN Jun-song
	HUANG Yu-cong

Cite this article:

FU Yue-quan,ZHOU Jin-liang,HOU Hua-sen, et al. The different of effects on annular hemorrhoids between PPH and M illigan-M organ[J]. 中国当代医药, 2018, 25(16): 63-65.

URL:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/ OR http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/Y2018/V25/I16/63

[1]	庞文峰.关于老年痔疮患者的发病原因调查分析[J].世界最新医学信息文摘，2015，（37）：147
[2]	黄宝.重度混合痔手术治疗体会[J].岭南现代临床外科，2014，14（1）：97-99.
[3]	丁超，王琛.混合痔手术治疗的研究进展[J].中国当代医药，2017，24（14）：12-14.
[4]	徐晓玉，彭春生.环状混合痔分段外剥内扎术临床体会[J].安徽医药，2013，17（11）：1925-1927.
[5]	洪驷耿，李邓松，刘金炎.PPH联合外剥内扎术治疗50例环状痔的疗效[J].上海医药，2016，37（11）：41-43.
[6]	胡宗鑫.用传统手术疗法与PPH痔疮手术疗法治疗严重痔疮的临床效果对比[J].当代医药论丛，2015，13（21）：201-202.
[7]	陈锦珍，向德志，耿兴琳，等.改良吻合器痔上黏膜环切术与传统手术治疗中重度痔疮的疗效比较[J].现代中西医结合杂志，2013，22（16）：1759-1760.
[8]	洪顺垣.天枢穴药物敷贴联合硬膜外镇痛泵对痔疮术后疼痛患者VAS评分及血清β-内啡肽的影响[J].针灸临床杂志，2016，32（2）：54-56.
[9]	肖团有，孙锋，黄丹丹，等.脱垂性痔形成机制研究进展[J].中华实用诊断与治疗杂志，2016，30（7）：637-638.
[10]	陈武.超声刀痔切除术与外剥内扎术治疗环状混合痔疗效比较[J].浙江实用医学，2017，22（2）：133-134.
[11]	Lu M，Shi GY，Wang GQ，et al.Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy with anal cushion suspension and partial internal sphincter resection for circumferentialmixed hemorrhoids[J].World JGastroenterol，2013，19（30）：5011-5015.
[12]	Wang J，CaiW.[Current status in surgical treatment of constipation][J].ZhonghuaWei ChangWai Ke Za Zhi，2018，21（3）：276-280.
[13]	常树勋，张红军，吉强，等.PPH术在治疗环状混合痔中的应用价值[J].中国现代医药杂志，2013，15（12）：78-79.
[14]	Iida Y，Saito H，Takashima Y，et al.Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids（PPH）with low rectal anastomosis using a PPH 03 stapler：low rate of recurrence and postoperative complications[J].Int JColorectal Dis，2017，32（12）：1687-1692.
[15]	沈建萍，徐丽丽，沈玉琴，等.痔疮患者术后早期肛门功能锻炼的影响因素及护理措施[J].天津护理，2013，21（1）：53-54.