Surgical innovation · 2013
Double PPH technique for hemorrhoidal prolapse: a multicentric, prospective, and nonrandomized trial.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Braini A, Narisetty P, Favero A, Calandra S, Calandra A, Caponnetto F, Digito F, Da Pozzo F, Marcotti E, Porebski E, Rovedo S, Terrosu G, Torricelli L, Stuto A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Longo's technique (or PPH technique) is well known worldwide. Meta-analysis suggests that the failure due to persistence or recurrence is close to 7.7%. One of the reasons for the recurrence is the treatment of the advanced hemorrhoidal prolapse with a single stapling device, which is not enough to resect the appropriate amount of prolapse.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe the application of "Double PPH Technique" (D-PPH) to treat large hemorrhoidal prolapses. We performed a multicentric, prospective, and nonrandomized trial from July 2008 to July 2009, wherein 2 groups of patients with prolapse and hemorrhoids were treated with a single PPH or a D-PPH. Results were compared. The primary outcome was evaluation of safety and efficacy of the D-PPH procedure in selected patients with large hemorrhoidal prolapse.
RESULTS: In all, 281 consecutive patients suffering from hemorrhoidal prolapse underwent surgery, of whom 74 were assigned intraoperatively to D-PPH, whereas 207 underwent single PPH. Postoperative complications were 5% in both groups (P = .32), in particular: postoperative major bleeding 3.0% in PPH versus 4.1% D-PPH (P = .59); pain 37.9 % PPH versus 27.3% D-PPH (mean visual analog scale [VAS] = 2.5 vs 2.9, respectively; P = .72); and fecal urgency 2.1% PPH versus 5.7% D-PPH (P = .8). Persistence of hemorrhoidal prolapse at 12-month follow-up was 3.7% in the PPH group versus 5.9% in the D-PPH group (P = .5).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the hypothesis that an accurate intraoperative patient selection for single (PPH) or double (D-PPH) stapled technique will lower in a significant way the incidence of recurrence after Longo's procedure for hemorrhoidal prolapse.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe the application of "Double PPH Technique" (D-PPH) to treat large hemorrhoidal prolapses. We performed a multicentric, prospective, and nonrandomized trial from July 2008 to July 2009, wherein 2 groups of patients with prolapse and hemorrhoids were treated with a single PPH or a D-PPH. Results were compared. The primary outcome was evaluation of safety and efficacy of the D-PPH procedure in selected patients with large hemorrhoidal prolapse.
RESULTS: In all, 281 consecutive patients suffering from hemorrhoidal prolapse underwent surgery, of whom 74 were assigned intraoperatively to D-PPH, whereas 207 underwent single PPH. Postoperative complications were 5% in both groups (P = .32), in particular: postoperative major bleeding 3.0% in PPH versus 4.1% D-PPH (P = .59); pain 37.9 % PPH versus 27.3% D-PPH (mean visual analog scale [VAS] = 2.5 vs 2.9, respectively; P = .72); and fecal urgency 2.1% PPH versus 5.7% D-PPH (P = .8). Persistence of hemorrhoidal prolapse at 12-month follow-up was 3.7% in the PPH group versus 5.9% in the D-PPH group (P = .5).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the hypothesis that an accurate intraoperative patient selection for single (PPH) or double (D-PPH) stapled technique will lower in a significant way the incidence of recurrence after Longo's procedure for hemorrhoidal prolapse.