首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England >A prospective randomised trial of PIN versus conventional stripping in varicose vein surgery.
【2h】

A prospective randomised trial of PIN versus conventional stripping in varicose vein surgery.

机译:静脉曲张手术中PIN与常规剥离的前瞻性随机试验。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

A prospective, randomised trial was carried out to examine the efficacy of perforate invagination (PIN, Credenhill Ltd, Derbyshire, UK) stripping of the long saphenous vein (LSV) in comparison to conventional stripping (Astratech AB, Sweden) in the surgical management of primary varicose veins. Eighty patients with primary varicosities secondary to sapheno-femoral junction (SFJ) incompetence and LSV reflux were recruited. Patients were randomised to PIN or conventional stripping with all other operative techniques remaining constant. Follow-up was performed at 1 and 6 weeks postoperatively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two techniques in terms of time taken to strip the vein, percentage of vein stripped or the area of bruising at 1 week. The size of the exit site was significantly smaller with the PIN device (P < or = 0.01). Optimal use of the conventional stripper provides results comparable to the PIN device. Choice of stripping device remains the surgeon's, bearing in mind that the PIN stripper achieves slightly better cosmesis.
机译:进行了一项前瞻性随机试验,以检查与常规剥离术(Astratech AB,瑞典)相比,长隐静脉的穿孔内陷术(PIN,Credenhill Ltd,英国德比郡,英国)与常规剥离术(Astratech AB,瑞典)的疗效原发性静脉曲张。招募了80例继发于隐股-股骨交界处(SFJ)功能不全和LSV反流的原发性静脉曲张的患者。在所有其他手术技术保持不变的情况下,将患者随机分组进行PIN或常规剥离。术后1周和6周进行随访。两种技术在剥离静脉所花费的时间,剥离的静脉的百分比或1周的瘀伤面积方面没有统计学上的显着差异。使用PIN设备时,出口站点的大小明显较小(P <或= 0.01)。最佳使用常规剥离器可提供与PIN设备相当的结果。请记住,剥皮设备的选择仍由外科医生决定,因为PIN剥皮器的美容效果略好。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号