Techniques in coloproctology · 2012
Rectoanal repair versus suture haemorrhoidopexy: a comparative study on suture mucopexy procedures for high-grade haemorrhoids.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Theodoropoulos G E, Michalopoulos N V, Linardoutsos D, Stamopoulos P, Flessas I, Tsamis D, Zografos G C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The isolated application of Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation (DGHAL) may fail due to the increased reprolapse rate for high-grade haemorrhoids. DGHAL has been combined with a proctoscopic-assisted transanal rectal mucopexy of the prolapsing tissue. The technique is called rectoanal repair (RAR) and is an evolution of various mucopexy and suture haemorrhoidopexy (SHP) techniques. A prominent external component may require minimal (muco-) cutaneous excision (MMCE) of protruding anoderm or minor cutaneous excision of skin tags.
METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with symptomatic Goligher grade III and IV haemorrhoids underwent DGHAL followed by either RAR or SHP. In 26 cases, the addition of MMCE was necessary.
RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two approaches with regards to pain scores measured with visual analogue scale (VAS). On postoperative day 1, mean pain score at rest was 5.81 (±2.23 SD) after SHP versus 5.08 (±2.35 SD) after RAR, while mean pain score at first defecation was 7.31 (±1.6 SD) versus 7.52 (±1.83 SD). There was no difference in the duration of analgesic requirements, postoperative complications and residual prolapse between the 2 procedures. The addition of MMCE did not affect postoperative pain nor analgesic requirements. With the exception of 8 patients who still had with skin tags or minimal protrusion, the remaining of patients (86 %) were asymptomatic and recurrence-free at an average follow-up of 20 months. Overall, 94.8 % of patients stated that they were satisfied with the results, and 91.2 % that they would repeat it if necessary.
CONCLUSIONS: Performance of either SHP or RAR after DGHAL is a safe and effective surgical tactic for advanced grade haemorrhoids. Our initial results do not confirm any superiority of RAR over traditional SHP.
METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with symptomatic Goligher grade III and IV haemorrhoids underwent DGHAL followed by either RAR or SHP. In 26 cases, the addition of MMCE was necessary.
RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two approaches with regards to pain scores measured with visual analogue scale (VAS). On postoperative day 1, mean pain score at rest was 5.81 (±2.23 SD) after SHP versus 5.08 (±2.35 SD) after RAR, while mean pain score at first defecation was 7.31 (±1.6 SD) versus 7.52 (±1.83 SD). There was no difference in the duration of analgesic requirements, postoperative complications and residual prolapse between the 2 procedures. The addition of MMCE did not affect postoperative pain nor analgesic requirements. With the exception of 8 patients who still had with skin tags or minimal protrusion, the remaining of patients (86 %) were asymptomatic and recurrence-free at an average follow-up of 20 months. Overall, 94.8 % of patients stated that they were satisfied with the results, and 91.2 % that they would repeat it if necessary.
CONCLUSIONS: Performance of either SHP or RAR after DGHAL is a safe and effective surgical tactic for advanced grade haemorrhoids. Our initial results do not confirm any superiority of RAR over traditional SHP.