American journal of surgery · 2001
Randomised controlled trial between stapled circumferential mucosectomy and conventional circular hemorrhoidectomy in advanced hemorrhoids with external mucosal prolapse.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Boccasanta P, Capretti P G, Venturi M, Cioffi U, De Simone M, Salamina G, Contessini-Avesani E, Peracchia A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This randomized prospective study compared the outcome of circular hemorrhoidectomy according to the Hospital Leopold Bellan (HLB) technique (Paris) with Longo stapled circumferential mucosectomy (LSCM) in two homogeneous groups of patients affected by circular fourth-degree hemorrhoids with external mucosal prolapse.
METHODS: From December 1996 to December 1999, 80 consecutive patients with fourth-degree hemorrhoids and external mucosal prolapse were randomly assigned to two groups. Forty patients (group A: 18 men, 22 women, mean age 50.5 years, range 21 to 82) underwent HLB hemorrhoidectomy, and 40 patients (group B: 15 men, 25 women, mean age 51.0 years, range 29 to 92) underwent LSCM. Before surgery, all patients were selected with a standard questionnaire for symptom evaluation, full proctological examination, flexible rectosigmoidoscopy, dynamic defecography, and anorectal manometry. No significant differences among the two groups were found. All patients were controlled with follow-up questionnaire and with clinical examination at 1, 2, 4, 12, and 54 weeks after the operation. A postoperative manometry was performed 3 months after surgery.
RESULTS: The length of the operation was significantly lower in group B (25 +/- 3.1 SD versus 50 +/- 5.3 minutes, P <0.001). Mean hospital stay was 3 +/- 0.4 days in group A and 2 +/- 0.5 days in group B (P <0.01). Mean duration of inability to work was 8 +/- 0.9 days in group B and 15 +/- 1.4 days in group A (P <0.001). Postoperative pain was significantly lower in group B (P <0.001). Mean length of follow-up was 20 +/- 8.0 months in group A and 20 +/- 7.8 months in group B. Late complications were similar in the two groups, with 0%, at present, recurrence rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that both operations are safe, easy to perform, and effective in the treatment of advanced hemorrhoids with external mucosal prolapse. However, the LSCM seems to be preferable owing to the fewer postoperative complications, easier postoperative management, and shorter time to return to work. A longer follow-up is required to confirm the true efficacy of this surgical method.
METHODS: From December 1996 to December 1999, 80 consecutive patients with fourth-degree hemorrhoids and external mucosal prolapse were randomly assigned to two groups. Forty patients (group A: 18 men, 22 women, mean age 50.5 years, range 21 to 82) underwent HLB hemorrhoidectomy, and 40 patients (group B: 15 men, 25 women, mean age 51.0 years, range 29 to 92) underwent LSCM. Before surgery, all patients were selected with a standard questionnaire for symptom evaluation, full proctological examination, flexible rectosigmoidoscopy, dynamic defecography, and anorectal manometry. No significant differences among the two groups were found. All patients were controlled with follow-up questionnaire and with clinical examination at 1, 2, 4, 12, and 54 weeks after the operation. A postoperative manometry was performed 3 months after surgery.
RESULTS: The length of the operation was significantly lower in group B (25 +/- 3.1 SD versus 50 +/- 5.3 minutes, P <0.001). Mean hospital stay was 3 +/- 0.4 days in group A and 2 +/- 0.5 days in group B (P <0.01). Mean duration of inability to work was 8 +/- 0.9 days in group B and 15 +/- 1.4 days in group A (P <0.001). Postoperative pain was significantly lower in group B (P <0.001). Mean length of follow-up was 20 +/- 8.0 months in group A and 20 +/- 7.8 months in group B. Late complications were similar in the two groups, with 0%, at present, recurrence rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that both operations are safe, easy to perform, and effective in the treatment of advanced hemorrhoids with external mucosal prolapse. However, the LSCM seems to be preferable owing to the fewer postoperative complications, easier postoperative management, and shorter time to return to work. A longer follow-up is required to confirm the true efficacy of this surgical method.