Current surgery · 2003
Radiosurgical fistulotomy; an alternative to conventional procedure in fistula in ano.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gupta Pravin J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Most surgeons continue to prefer the classic lay open technique [fistulotomy] as the gold standard of treatment in anal fistula. In this randomized study, a comparison is made between conventional fistulotomy and fistulotomy performed by a radio frequency device.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients of low anal fistula posted for fistulotomy were randomized prospectively to either a conventional or radio frequency technique. Parameters measured included time taken for the procedure, amount of blood loss, postoperative pain, return to work, and recurrence rate.
RESULTS: The patient demographic was comparable in 2 groups. The radio frequency fistulotomy was quicker as compared to a conventional one [22 versus 37 minutes, p = 0.001], amount of bleeding was significantly less [47 ml versus 134 ml, p = 0.002], and hospital stay was less when patient was operated by radio frequency method [37 hours versus 56 hours in conventional method, p = 0.001]. The postoperative pain in the first 24 hours was more in conventional group [2 to 5 versus 0 to 3 on visual analogue scale]. The patients from radio frequency group resumed their duties early with a reduced healing period of the wounds [47 versus 64 days, p = 0.01]. The recurrence or failure rates were comparable in the radio frequency and conventional groups [2% versus 6%].
CONCLUSIONS: Fistulotomy procedure using a radio frequency technique has significant advantages over a conventional procedure with regard to operation time, blood loss, return to normal activity, and healing time of the wound.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients of low anal fistula posted for fistulotomy were randomized prospectively to either a conventional or radio frequency technique. Parameters measured included time taken for the procedure, amount of blood loss, postoperative pain, return to work, and recurrence rate.
RESULTS: The patient demographic was comparable in 2 groups. The radio frequency fistulotomy was quicker as compared to a conventional one [22 versus 37 minutes, p = 0.001], amount of bleeding was significantly less [47 ml versus 134 ml, p = 0.002], and hospital stay was less when patient was operated by radio frequency method [37 hours versus 56 hours in conventional method, p = 0.001]. The postoperative pain in the first 24 hours was more in conventional group [2 to 5 versus 0 to 3 on visual analogue scale]. The patients from radio frequency group resumed their duties early with a reduced healing period of the wounds [47 versus 64 days, p = 0.01]. The recurrence or failure rates were comparable in the radio frequency and conventional groups [2% versus 6%].
CONCLUSIONS: Fistulotomy procedure using a radio frequency technique has significant advantages over a conventional procedure with regard to operation time, blood loss, return to normal activity, and healing time of the wound.