PPH术与传统外剥内扎术治疗痔的临床疗效对比

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-976X.2013.02.017

岭南现代临床外科 ›› 2013, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (02): 135-137.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-976X.2013.02.017

PPH术与传统外剥内扎术治疗痔的临床疗效对比

辜树勇杨逸峰林集荣潘锋锷

潮州市潮安县人民医院

通讯作者: 辜树勇

Comparison of clinical results between PPH and Milligan?鄄Morgan haemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids

Gu Shuyong, Yang Yifeng, Lin Jirong, Pan Feng'e

The People's Hospital of Chao'an

Received:2012-12-24 Revised:2013-01-30 Online:2013-04-20 Published:2013-04-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【摘要】目的 探讨吻合器痔上粘膜环形切除术(PPH)和传统外剥内扎术(Milligan-Morgan术,MM)在治疗痔疮的效果。方法回顾性分析我科从2009年1月到2012年6月期间的152例痔疮病人的临床资料,其中82例行PPH手术(PPH组),70例行MM术(MM组)。比较两组的疗效及手术时间、术后住院时间、住院费用、术中出血、术后并发症的差别。结果两组患者术后原有症状均得到了有效控制。PPH手术较MM术手术时间、术后住院时间明显缩短,术中术后出血发生率明显减低,但住院费用较高,以上差异均有统计学意义。治愈率、术后尿潴留及术后肛门坠胀感两组相比无显著性差异。结论与外剥内扎术相比,PPH术具有疗效较好、创伤小,术后恢复快。

关键词: 痔, 痔上黏膜环形切除术, 痔外剥内扎术

Abstract:

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the results of PPH and Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids. Methods From January 2009 to June 2012,the clinical date of 152 cases with hemorrhoids received operative treatment were analyzed retrospectively. Among them,82 cases underwent PPH and 70 cases underwent Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy (MMH). The curative effects, operative time,postoperative hospitalization time, hospitalization cost, intraoperative blood loss and post-operative complications were compared between two groups. Results All patient's original symptoms had been effectively controlled. PPH group had shorter surgical time, less postoperative hospitalization, less postoperative complications and more costs than MM group. The cure rate,postoperative urinary retention and anal tenesmus were no difference between two groups. Conclusion Compared with Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy,PPH has a better efficacy,less trauma and postoperative quick recovery.

Key words: Hemorrhoid, Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids, Milligan-Morgan haem-orrhoidectomy

中图分类号:

R657.1

辜树勇杨逸峰林集荣潘锋锷. PPH术与传统外剥内扎术治疗痔的临床疗效对比[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2013, 13(02): 135-137.

Gu Shuyong, Yang Yifeng, Lin Jirong, Pan Feng'e. Comparison of clinical results between PPH and Milligan?鄄Morgan haemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids[J]. Lingnan Modern Clinics in Surgery, 2013, 13(02): 135-137.

[1]	刘凡, 余智涛, 温圣荣. PPH和MMH治疗重度混合痔对性功能影响的临床观察[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2024, 24(04): 249-253.
[2]	吴海雄, 李强, 姚奇, 林丽芬. 各期内痔动脉血供特性的临床研究[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2024, 24(01): 65-68.
[3]	黎淑玲, 刘俊杰. 体表标记定位下内镜套扎治疗Ⅱ~Ⅲ度内痔的前瞻性研究[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2022, 22(02): 187-190.
[4]	陈海明, 许玲玲, 李建光, 罗惠明. 快速康复外科策略在环状混合痔围手术期治疗中的应用[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2022, 22(01): 75-78.
[5]	黄玉宝, 陈至玉, 周雄. RPH与PPH分别联合外剥内扎术治疗中重度混合痔高龄患者的手术分析[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2020, 20(04): 448-451.
[6]	王勇，钟剑涛，刘水萍，姚进旺，邓群，黄伟香，杨柳娥. 弹力线套扎吻合器治疗混合痔 48 例临床观察[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2018, 18(02): 172-178.
[7]	钟雄东. 复方聚乙二醇电解质散应用于混合痔患者术前肠道准备的临床观察[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2017, 17(04): 481-483.
[8]	陈展鹏关振忠. Milligan-Morgan术式联合痔核套扎术治疗痔病的经验[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2016, 16(06): 698-702.
[9]	叶俊华黄明华赵海生. 吻合器痔上粘膜环切术联合直肠粘膜折叠治疗I度直肠脱垂的研究[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2015, 15(06): 690-692.
[10]	陈玲卢敏何彩群封静许锦欢叶春媛. 超声刀与电刀运用于混合痔术后对比观察与护理[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2015, 15(05): 643-644.
[11]	钟雄东林焕辉褚忠华. 表皮生长因子用于痔术后创面治疗的效果[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2015, 15(02): 166-168.
[12]	何嘉辉彭水清. 喜疗妥软膏治疗血栓性外痔的临床观察[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2014, 14(05): 600-601.
[13]	侯辉余智涛王悦辉. 抗凝治疗的内痔患者行吻合器痔上黏膜环切术的治疗体会[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2014, 14(03): 317-320.
[14]	陈振峰. PPH术后出血的原因和对策[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2014, 14(03): 320-322.
[15]	黄宝张秀娜. 重度混合痔手术治疗体会[J]. 岭南现代临床外科, 2014, 14(01): 97-99.

PPH术与传统外剥内扎术治疗痔的临床疗效对比

Comparison of clinical results between PPH and Milligan?鄄Morgan haemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics