摘要
目的:探讨自动痔疮套扎术(Ruiyun procedure for hemorrhoids,RPH)联合外痔切除术治疗Ⅲ～Ⅳ期混合痔患者的临床疗效及术后并发症的发生情况,为临床广泛开展应用提供客观依据。方法:选择2016-03-01～2018-03-01某院肛肠外科收治的145例Ⅲ～Ⅳ期混合痔患者为研究对象,随机分为研究组(采用RPH联合外痔切除手术,n=75)和对照组(采用传统的外剥内扎手术,n=70),观察两组的手术总体疗效、手术时间、创面愈合时间、术后疼痛程度及术后并发症发生情况(如出血、尿潴留、肛缘水肿、肛门狭窄或失禁),评价RPH微创治疗痔疮的优越性。结果:研究组手术总体疗效与对照组相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但研究组手术时间、创面愈合时间、术后疼痛程度及术后并发症发生情况与对照组相比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:RPH联合外痔切除术治疗Ⅲ～Ⅳ期混合痔手术时间短、创面愈合快、术后疼痛轻、术后并发症少,具有更加微创的效果,值得临床推广应用。
Objective:To evaluate the clinical efficacy and postoperative complications of Ruiyun procedure for hemorrhoids(RPH)combined with external hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ mixed hemorrhoids,and to provide an objective basis for clinical application.Methods:A total of 145 patients with stageⅢ-Ⅳ mixed hemorrhoids admitted to the anorectal surgery from March 1 2016 to March 1 2018 were selected and randomly divided into the study group(RPH combined with external hemorrhoidectomy,75cases)and the control group(traditional external stripping and internal ligation,70cases).The overall efficacy of the two surgical methods,operation time,wound healing time,postoperative pain degree,and postoperative complications(such as bleeding,urinary retention,anal edema,anal stenosis or incontinence) were observed,the superiority of RPH minimally invasive treatment of hemorrhoids was compared.Results:There was no significant difference between the study group and the control group in overall efficacy(P>0.05),but there were significant differences in the operation time,wound healing time,postoperative pain degree and postoperative complications(P <0.05).Conclusion:RPH combined with external hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ hemorrhoids has short operation time,rapid wound healing,light postoperative pain,less postoperative complications,and more minimally invasive effect,which is worthy of clinical application.
引文
[1]Sahar D,Homa H,Somayeh E,et al.Traditional and modern aspects of hemorrhoid treatment in Iran[J].J Integrat Med,2018,16(3):90-98.
[2]Niranjan A,Kumkum S,Parvez S,et al.Executive summary-the association of colon&rectal surgeons of India(ACRSI)practice guidelines for the management of haemorrhoids-2016[J].Indian J Surgery,2017,79(1):58-61.
[3]Higuero T,Abramowitz L,Castinel A,et al.Guidelines for the treatment of hemorrhoids[J].J Visc Surg,2016,153(3):213-218.
[4]刘君德,刘彬,魏小森.RPH辅以外痔切缝封闭术治疗混合痔的临床研究[J].中国肛肠病杂志,2017,37(8):24-26.
[5]王甜甜,王俊,李毅忠.RPH联合外痔切除术治疗混合痔的疗效观察[J].中国肛肠病杂志,2017,37(9):28-30.
[6]董大海,曲岩,相凤,等.RPH加外痔剥离术治疗混合痔的临床疗效[J].中国肛肠病杂志,2017,37(8):22-24.
[7]中华医学会外科学分会结直肠肛门外科学组.痔临床诊治指南(2006版)[J].中华胃肠外科杂志,2006,9(5):461-463.
[8]中华中医药学会肛肠分会.最新全国肛肠疾病流调结果发布[J].世界中西医结合杂志,2015,10(11):1489.
[9]Cerato M,Cerayo N,Passos P,et al.Surgical treatment of hemorrhoids:a critical appraisal of the current options[J].Cir Dig,2014,27(1):66-70.
[10]Moult H P,Aubert M,De P V.Classical treatment of hemorrhoids[J].J Visc Surg,2014,152(2):3-9.
[11]Pucher P H,Qurashi M,Howell A M,et al.Development and validation of a symptom-based severity score for haemorrhoidal disease:the Sodergren score[J].Colorectal Dis,2015,17(7):612-618.
[12]邓蓓蓓,王贵军.微创医学理念的发展对精准医学发展的借鉴意义[J].医学信息,2016,29(13):221-222.
[13]王秋生.微创外科与传统外科的和谐发展之道[J].国际外科学杂志,2010,37(8):505-506.
[14]徐珊珊,王业皇.微创吻合器治疗内痔的研究进展[J].中国肛肠病杂志,2016,36(3):52-55.
[15]Abualbishr A,Allan W,Steven R,et al.Cost effectiveness of haemorrhoidal artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for the treatment of gradeⅡ-Ⅲhaemorrhoids:analysis using evidence from the HubBLe trial[J].Pharmaco Conomics Open,2017,1(9):175-184.
[16]Elshazly W G,Gazal A E,Madbouly K,et al.Ligation anopexy versus hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of second and third-degree hemorrhoids[J].Tech Coloproctol,2015,19(1):29-34.
[17]Brown S R,Watson A.Comments to Rubber band ligation versus excisional haemorrhoidectomy for haemorrhoids[J].Tech Coloproctol,2016,20(3):659-661.
[18]Fahmi O A.Rubber band ligation for hemorrhoids:an office experience[J].Indian J Surg,2016,78(4):271-274.
[19]Sajid M S,Bhatti M I,Caswell J,et al.Local anaesthetic infiltration for the rubber band ligation of early symptomatic haemorrhoids:a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J].Updates Surg,2015,67(5):3-9.
[20]Patrick J.Disposable device and a minimally invasive technique for rubber band ligation of hemorrhoids[J].Dis Colon Rectum,1999,42(5):683-685.
[21]Kanellos I,Goulimaris I,Vakalis I,et al.Long-term results of rubber-band ligation for second-degree haemorrhoids:aprospective study[J].Tech Coloproctol,2000,4(2):99-101.
[22]Peng B C,Jyne D G.Randomized trial of rubber band cigation vs stapled hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed[J].Dis Colon Rectum,2003,46(3):291-297.
[23]苗军,李毓敏,侯漫.RPH结合外痔剥切术治疗混合痔的临床研究[J].中国肛肠病杂志,2017,37(8):27-29.
[24]雷新益,张志云,吉祖进,等.RPH联合外剥内扎术与PPH治疗重度混合痔的临床效果比较[J].实用医学杂志,2018,34(12):2049-2052.
[25]肖忠华,周冬根,林宏城,等.套扎器与开环式痔吻合器在内痔手术中的应用比较[J].中国当代医药,2014,32(21):180-181.
[26]李海玲.TST与RPH治疗混合痔的临床疗效观察[J].新疆医学,2014,46(10):84-85.
[27]Ratto C,Parello A,Veronese E,et al.Doppler-guided transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialization for haemorrhoids:results from a multicentre trial[J].Colorectal Dis,2015,17(1):10-19.
[28]Ratto C.THD Doppler procedure for hemorrhoids:the surgical technique[J].Tech Coloproctol,2014,18(3):291-298.
[29]Giordano P,Tomasi I,Pascariello A,et al.Transanal dearterialization with targeted mucopexy is effective for advanced haemorrhoids[J].Colorectal Dis,2014,16:373-376.
[30]Xu L,Chen H,Lin G,et al.Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy versus open hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids:a Metaanalysis of randomized control trials[J].Tech Coloproctol,2016,20(9):825-833.
[31]Trenti L,Biondo S,Galvez A,et al.Distal Dopplerguided transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for gradeⅢandⅣhemorrhoids:postoperative morbidity and long-term outcomes[J].Tech Coloproctol,2017,21(5):337-344.
[32]Leung L H,Cheung P P,Tung K,et al.A prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating the shortterm outcomes of transanal hemorrhoidal dearterializ-ation versus tissue-selecting technique[J].Tech Coloproctol,2017,21(9):737-743.
