Suppr超能文献

芍倍注射液与橡皮圈套扎术治疗Ⅱ、Ⅲ度内痔的临床疗效、安全性及经济性分析

[Analysis on clinical efficacy, safety and economy of Shaobei injection and elastic band ligation in the treatment of grade II or III hemorrhoids].

作者信息

Huang D D, Liu Z M, Zhang D, Hu B, Su D, Zhang H, Ren D L

机构信息

Department of Colorectal and Anal Surgery, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yet-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510655, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2020 Dec 25;23(12):1194-1199. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn.441530-20200526-00312.

Abstract

Currently, various treatments such as hemorrhoidectomy, ligation and sclerotherapy injection can be applied in grade II or III hemorrhoids. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy, safety and economy between Shaobei injection and elastic band ligation in treating patients with grade II or grade III hemorrhoids. A retrospective cohort study was used. Clinical data of 60 patients with grade II or grade III hemorrhoids at Department of Anorectal Surgery of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University between January 2019 and October 2019 were collected. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical methods. Patients in the Shaobei group received Shaobei injection (=28), and those in the ligation group received elastic band ligation (=32). Inclusion criteria: (1) diagnosis of grade II or III hemorrhoid; (2) application of Shaobei injection or elastic band ligation; (3) age between 18-75 years old. Exclusion criteria: (1) comorbidity with anal fissure, anal fistula, anal sinusitis or other perianal diseases; (2) patients with mental disorder or poor compliance; (3) incomplete clinical or follow-up data. Recurrent rate, postoperative pain, anal edema, anal distension, total cost of hospitalization, length of hospitalization, and postoperative life quality EQ-5D-3L score were compared between the two groups at postoperative 6-month. No significant difference was observed in the baseline data (including Nystrom hemorrhoid symptom score) between the two groups (all >0.05), except gender ratio [male proportion: Shaobei 75% (21/28) vs. ligation 37.5%(12/32), χ(2)=8.485, =0.004]. No significant difference in recurrent rate was found between the two groups [14.3% (4/28) vs. 9.4% (3/32), χ(2)=0.035, =0.851]. Compared to the ligation group, Shaobei group showed less pain at postoperative day 1 [VAS median (range): 2 (1-6) vs. 3 (1-7), =2.814, =0.005] and postoperative day 7 [VAS median (range): 0 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-4), =3.149, =0.002]; lower anal edema ratio at postoperative day 1 [10.7% (3/28) vs. 34.4% (11/32), =4.673, =0.037]; lower anal distension ratio at postoperative day 1 [7.1% (2/28) vs. 28.1% (9/32), =4.391, =0.048]; less hospitalization cost [(6343.5±1444.1) yuan vs. (10 587.1± 1719.0) yuan, =12.515, <0.001] and shorter postoperative hospital stay [median (range): 1 (1-5) days vs. 3 (1-6) days, =5.879, <0.001]. The EQ-5D-3L scores of two groups were significantly improved six months after treatment [Shaobei group: (0.90±0.16) vs. (0.73±0.14); ligation group: (0.91±0.13) vs. (0.74±0.10); both <0.001], while there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (=0.130, =0.897). No complications such as massive hemorrhage, infection, iatrogenic anal fistula, rectal stricture and local induration occurred after the injection. Shaobei injection is effective and safe in treating grade II or III hemorrhoids. Compared with elastic band ligation, it can reduce morbidity of complications and hospitalization expenses.

摘要

目前,诸如痔切除术、结扎术和硬化剂注射等多种治疗方法可应用于Ⅱ度或Ⅲ度痔疮。本研究旨在比较芍倍注射术与弹力线结扎术治疗Ⅱ度或Ⅲ度痔疮患者的临床疗效、安全性和经济性。采用回顾性队列研究。收集了中山大学附属第六医院肛肠外科2019年1月至2019年10月期间60例Ⅱ度或Ⅲ度痔疮患者的临床资料。根据手术方法将患者分为两组。芍倍组患者接受芍倍注射(n = 28),结扎组患者接受弹力线结扎(n = 32)。纳入标准:(1)诊断为Ⅱ度或Ⅲ度痔疮;(2)采用芍倍注射或弹力线结扎;(3)年龄在18 - 75岁之间。排除标准:(1)合并肛裂、肛瘘、肛窦炎或其他肛周疾病;(2)患有精神障碍或依从性差的患者;(3)临床或随访资料不完整。比较两组术后6个月的复发率、术后疼痛、肛门水肿、肛门坠胀、住院总费用、住院时间以及术后生活质量EQ - 5D - 3L评分。两组基线数据(包括尼斯特龙痔疮症状评分)无显著差异(均P>0.05),但性别比除外[男性比例:芍倍组75%(21/28) vs. 结扎组37.5%(12/32),χ² = 8.485,P = 0.004]。两组复发率无显著差异[14.3%(4/28) vs. 9.4%(3/32),χ² = 0.035,P = 0.851]。与结扎组相比,芍倍组术后第1天[视觉模拟评分法(VAS)中位数(范围):2(1 - 6) vs. 3(1 - 7),t = 2.814,P = 0.005]和术后第7天[VAS中位数(范围):0(0 - 2) vs. 1(0 - 4),t = 3.149,P = 0.002]疼痛较轻;术后第1天肛门水肿比例较低[10.7%(3/28) vs. 34.4%(11/32),χ² = 4.673,P = 0.037];术后第1天肛门坠胀比例较低[7.1%(2/28) vs. 28.1%(9/32),χ² = 4.391,P = 0.048];住院费用较少[(6343.5±1444.1)元 vs. (10587.1±1719.0)元,t = 12.515,P<0.001],术后住院时间较短[中位数(范围):1(1 - 5)天 vs. 3(1 - 6)天,t = 5.879,P<0.001]。两组治疗后6个月EQ - 5D - 3L评分均显著改善[芍倍组:(新值)(0.90±0.16) vs. (原值)(0.73±0.14);结扎组:(新值)(0.91±0.13) vs. (原值)(0.74±0.10);均P<0.001],但两组间无统计学显著差异(t = 0.130,P = 0.897)。注射后未发生大出血、感染、医源性肛瘘、直肠狭窄和局部硬结等并发症。芍倍注射术治疗Ⅱ度或Ⅲ度痔疮有效且安全。与弹力线结扎术相比,它可降低并发症发生率和住院费用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验