首页> 外文期刊>The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine >Conventional Hemorrhoidectomy versus Ligasure Hemorrhoidectomy: A Comparative Study
【24h】

Conventional Hemorrhoidectomy versus Ligasure Hemorrhoidectomy: A Comparative Study

机译:常规痔切除术与韧带痔切除术的比较研究

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background: Hemorrhoidal disease is one of the most common anorectal diseases and surgical hemorrhoidectomy remains one of the most common operations in general surgery. Milligan-Morgan Described the conventional hemorrhoidectomy since about 70 years ago, then surgical hemorrhoidectomy had changed little over years until the introduction of LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy. Aim of the Work: Is to compare between conventional (Milligan-Morgan) hemorrhoidectomy and LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy in treating patients with 3rd and 4th degree internal piles. Patients and Methods: This randomized control clinical trial was done at Mounira General Hospital over a period from April 2017 to March 2018 on the basis of: It included 40 adult patients with 3rd and 4th degree hemorrhoids divided randomly into 2 equal groups: Group A (n: 20 patients) underwent LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy. Group B (n: 20 patients) underwent Conventional hemorrhoidectomy. Results: There was a highly significant difference between the two study groups as regard the operative time, in the LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy group the mean operative time was 11.15 ± 2.68 minutes, while in the conventional technique group the mean time was 28.75 ± 4.20 minutes. As regards the post-operative pain, in the 1st day, there was a highly significant difference between the two study groups; in the LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy group the mean post-operative pain was 3.80 ± 1.54; while in the conventional technique it was 5.95 ± 0.99. Regarding the post-operative pain, in the 1st week, the LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy group mean was 2.60 ± 1.27; while in the conventional method was 4.80±0.89. As regard the intra-operative estimated blood loss, a significant difference between the two study groups was present. In ligaSure hemorrhoidectomy group 40% had almost no bleeding, 20% had minimal blood loss, 20% had mild loss and 20% had moderate blood loss in comparison with conventional method group patients; 0% with no blood loss, 15% with minimal loss, 55% with mild loss and 30% with moderate blood loss. As regards duration of wound healing, in the LigaSure group, the mean time was 2.65 ± 0.74 weeks while in the in the conventional technique group, it was 4.60 ± 0.82 weeks which was statistically highly significant. With LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy only 6 patients out of 20 needed anal packing, in contrast with conventional method group that needed an anal pack for the whole 20 patients. Conclusion: We conclude that LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy is better than conventional (Milligan-Morgan) hemorrhoidectomy in terms of less operative time, less intra- operative blood loss, less post-operative pain, less post-operative analgesics and earlier wound healing and return to daily work hence higher patient satisfaction. Recommendations: Further studies on a larger scale of patients are needed to confirm the results obtained by this work.
机译:背景:痔疮是最常见的肛门直肠疾病之一,而外科痔疮切除术仍然是普外科中最常见的手术之一。 Milligan-Morgan自大约70年前就开始描述传统的痔疮切除术,然后在几年前,直到引入LigaSure痔疮切除术,外科手术痔疮切除术几乎没有改变。工作目的:比较常规(Milligan-Morgan)痔切除术和LigaSure痔切除术治疗3度和4度内桩的患者。患者和方法:该随机对照临床试验于2017年4月至2018年3月在Mounira总医院进行,其依据是:包括40位成年患者,三级和四级痔疮随机分为两组,分别为A组( n:20例)接受了LigaSure痔切除术。 B组(n:20例)行常规痔切除术。结果:两个研究组之间的手术时间差异非常显着,LigaSure痔切除术组的平均手术时间为11.15±2.68分钟,而常规技术组的平均手术时间为28.75±4.20分钟。关于术后疼痛,在第一天,两个研究组之间有非常显着的差异。 LigaSure痔切除术组的平均术后疼痛为3.80±1.54;而在传统技术中为5.95±0.99。关于术后疼痛,在第一周,LigaSure痔切除术组的平均值为2.60±1.27;常规方法为4.80±0.89。关于术中估计失血量,两个研究组之间存在显着差异。与传统方法组患者相比,ligaSure痔切除术组中40%几乎没有出血,20%几乎没有失血,20%轻微失血,20%中等失血; 0%,无失血,15%,最小失血,55%,轻度失血,30%,中度失血。关于伤口愈合的持续时间,LigaSure组的平均时间为2.65±0.74周,而常规技术组的平均时间为4.60±0.82周,具有统计学意义。 LigaSure痔切除术在20名患者中只有6名患者需要肛门包扎,而传统方法组则需要为全部20名患者提供肛门包扎。结论:我们的结论是,LigaSure痔切除术比常规的(Milligan-Morgan)痔切除术在更少的手术时间,更少的术中失血,更少的术后痛苦,更少的术后镇痛药以及更早的伤口愈合和恢复到日常方面都更好工作从而提高了患者满意度。建议:需要对更大范围的患者进行进一步研究,以确认这项工作获得的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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