Sun W M, Read N W, Shorthouse A J
Department of Surgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Br J Surg. 1990 Apr;77(4):458-62. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800770430.
Anorectal manometry and electrophysiology studies were conducted in 25 men with non-prolapsing haemorrhoids, ten men with prolapsing haemorrhoids, and 20 age-matched normal men. Mean(s.e.m.) minimum basal pressures were significantly higher in patients with non-prolapsing haemorrhoids than in normals (61(5) versus 43(7) cmH2O; P less than 0.05) or patients with prolapsing haemorrhoids (55(4) cmH2O; P less than 0.05). There were no significant differences in maximum basal pressures and maximum squeeze pressures. During rectal distension, all normal subjects showed relaxation in all anal channels. However, 92 per cent of patients with non-prolapsing haemorrhoids and 40 per cent of patients with prolapsing haemorrhoids showed no relaxation in the outer anal channels, even when relaxation occurred in the inner anal channels; internal sphincter electrical slow waves were suppressed and the integrated electrical activity of the external sphincter had returned to predistension values. Maximum residual anal pressures during balloon distension were significantly higher in patients with non-prolapsing haemorrhoids than normals (75(7) versus 45(7) cmH2O; P less than 0.01), or patients with prolapsing haemorrhoids (53(3) cmH2O; P less than 0.05). When subjects increased intra-abdominal pressure rectal pressure was significantly higher in patients with non-prolapsing haemorrhoids than in normal subjects (157(10) versus 105(15) cmH2O; P less than 0.05), but not in patients with prolapsing haemorrhoids (126(14) cmH2O). Resting anal cushion pressures in patients with non-prolapsing or prolapsing haemorrhoids were much higher than normal capillary or venous pressure and significantly higher than those recorded in normals (median 35, 35 versus 10 cmH2O; P less than 0.0001). Pressures recorded during coughing (60, 60 versus 30 cmH2O) and straining (78, 80 versus 55 cmH2O) were also significantly higher (P less than 0.0001) in patients than in normals. Pressures after straining were higher than those recorded before (38 versus 29 cmH2O; P less than 0.05) in 60 per cent of patients but no normal subjects and took 18-36 s to return to baseline. This study suggests that the abnormally high pressures in the anal canal in patients with haemorrhoids may be related to an increased vascular pressure in the anal cushions.
对25名患有非脱垂性痔疮的男性、10名患有脱垂性痔疮的男性以及20名年龄匹配的正常男性进行了肛肠测压和电生理研究。非脱垂性痔疮患者的平均(标准误)最小基础压力显著高于正常人(61(5)对43(7)cmH₂O;P<0.05)或脱垂性痔疮患者(55(4)cmH₂O;P<0.05)。最大基础压力和最大挤压压力无显著差异。在直肠扩张期间,所有正常受试者的所有肛管均表现出松弛。然而,92%的非脱垂性痔疮患者和40%的脱垂性痔疮患者即使内肛管出现松弛,外肛管也无松弛;内括约肌电慢波受到抑制,外括约肌的综合电活动恢复到扩张前的值。非脱垂性痔疮患者在球囊扩张期间的最大残余肛管压力显著高于正常人(75(7)对45(7)cmH₂O;P<0.01)或脱垂性痔疮患者(53(3)cmH₂O;P<0.05)。当受试者增加腹内压时,非脱垂性痔疮患者的直肠压力显著高于正常受试者(157(10)对105(15)cmH₂O;P<0.05),但脱垂性痔疮患者无此情况(126(14)cmH₂O)。非脱垂性或脱垂性痔疮患者的静息肛垫压力远高于正常毛细血管或静脉压力,且显著高于正常人记录的值(中位数35、35对10 cmH₂O;P<0.0001)。患者咳嗽(60、60对30 cmH₂O)和用力排便(78、80对55 cmH₂O)时记录的压力也显著高于正常人(P<0.0001)。60%的患者用力排便后的压力高于排便前(38对29 cmH₂O;P<0.05),而正常受试者无此情况,且压力需18 - 36秒才能恢复到基线。本研究表明,痔疮患者肛管内异常高的压力可能与肛垫血管压力增加有关。