切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华结直肠疾病电子杂志 ›› 2017, Vol. 06 ›› Issue (06) : 484 -487. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3224.2017.06.008

所属专题: 专题评论 文献

论著

腹腔镜盆底修复直肠悬吊联合PPH治疗直肠黏膜内脱垂的疗效评价
王超1, 杨阳2, 杨维维2, 曹永丽2, 魏东2,()   
  1. 1. 472000 三门峡市中心医院肛肠科
    2. 471031 洛阳,中国人民解放军第150中心医院肛肠外科研究所
  • 收稿日期:2017-06-28 出版日期:2017-12-25
  • 通信作者: 魏东
  • 基金资助:
    河南省医学科技攻关计划项目(No.2011030031)

Clinical effect of laparoscopic rectal suspension with basin repair combined with the PPH for rectal internal mucosal prolapse

Chao Wang1, Yang Yang2, Weiwei Yang2, Yongli Cao2, Dong Wei2,()   

  1. 1. Department of Anus &Intestine Surgery, Sanmenxia Central Hospital, Sanmenxia 472000, China
    2. Institute of Anal-Colorectal Surgery, No.150 Central Hospital of PLA, Luoyang 471031, China
  • Received:2017-06-28 Published:2017-12-25
  • Corresponding author: Dong Wei
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Wei Dong, Email:
引用本文:

王超, 杨阳, 杨维维, 曹永丽, 魏东. 腹腔镜盆底修复直肠悬吊联合PPH治疗直肠黏膜内脱垂的疗效评价[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2017, 06(06): 484-487.

Chao Wang, Yang Yang, Weiwei Yang, Yongli Cao, Dong Wei. Clinical effect of laparoscopic rectal suspension with basin repair combined with the PPH for rectal internal mucosal prolapse[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Colorectal Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2017, 06(06): 484-487.

目的

研究腹腔镜盆底修复直肠悬吊联合PPH术治疗直肠黏膜内脱垂的临床疗效。

方法

选择2011年3月至2012年11月手术治疗的直肠黏膜内脱垂患者94例,按手术方式分为两组。A组共48例,实施腹腔镜盆底修复直肠悬吊联合PPH术,B组46例实施PPH术。术后24个月分别对两组患者Longo和Wexner评分、术后有效率、并发症等情况进行分析。

结果

A、B两组Longo评分平均值术前分别为15.39±4.15、14.86±3.06,术后24个月降至5.37±0.87、7.84±1.23。A组(t=16.37,P<0.01)和B组(t=14.46,P<0.01)组内术前、术后比较差异有统计学意义。术后24个月A组Longo评分平均值显著低于B组评分(t=-11.28,P<0.01),差异具有统计学意义。A、B两组Wexner评分平均值术前分别为14.25±3.37、14.58±3.14,术后24个月降至4.85±0.51、7.52±0.94。A组(t=19.11,P<0.01)和B组(t=14.61,P<0.01)组内术前、术后比较差异有统计学意义。术后24个月A组Wexner评分平均值显著低于B组评分(t=-17.21,P<0.01),差异具有统计学意义。两组有效率比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=5.84,P<0.05),两组术后并发症比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.20,P>0.05)。

结论

腹腔镜盆底修复直肠悬吊联合PPH术治疗直肠黏膜内脱垂的短期效果较单用PPH术好,但远期疗效需要进一步研究。

Objective

To analyze clinical efficacy of laparoscopic rectal suspension with basin repair combined with the PPH for rectal internal mucosal prolapse.

Methods

From March 2011 to November 2012, 94 cases of patients who had internal rectal mucosal prolapse were treated.Patients were divided into two groups in terms of different surgical techniques.Group A (n=48) received laparoscopic rectal suspension with basin repair combined with the PPH,Group B (n=46) received PPH.Longo Score and Wexner Score,postoperative effect,postoperative complications in the two groups were assessed respectively before surgery and 24 months after surgery.

Results

The average preoperative Longo score of A,B two groups were 15.39±4.15、14.86±3.06,after 24 months fell to 5.37±0.87、7.84±1.23. Group A (t=16.37, P<0.01) and group B (t=14.46, P<0.01) within the group of preoperative and postoperative comparative difference was statistically significant. Average Longo score of group A after 24 months were significantly lower than those of group B (t=-11.28, P<0.01), the difference was statistically significant.The average preoperative Wexner score of A, B two groups were 14.25±3.37、14.58±3.14, after 24 months fell to 4.85±0.51、7.52±0.94. Group A (t=19.11, P<0.01) and group B (t=14.61, P<0.01) within the group of preoperative and postoperative comparative difference was statistically significant.Average Wexner score of group A after 24 months were significantly lower than those of group B (t=-17.21, P<0.01), the difference was statistically significant. The total effective rate among the two groups was statistically significant (χ2=5.84, P<0.05). The complications of two groups were not statistically insignificant (χ2=0.20, P>0.05).

Conclusion

The short term efficacy of laparoscopic rectal suspension with basin repair combined with the PPH is better than PPH, but the long term effect need further research.

表1 两组患者一般资料比较
表2 两组术前与术后24个月Longo便秘症状评分及Wexner便秘严重程度评分比较(±s,分)
表3 两组术后24个月Longo便秘症状评分及Wexner便秘严重程度评分比较(±s,分
表4 两组患者术后24个月疗效比较(例,%)
1
Rao SS,Rattankovit K,Patcharatrakul T. Diagnosis and management of chronic constipation in adults [J]. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016, 13(5): 295-305.
2
Drossman DA. The functional gastrointestinal disorders and the Rome Ⅲ process [J]. Gastro-enterology, 2006, 130(5): 1377-1390.
3
中华医学会消化病学分会胃肠动力学组, 中华医学会外科学分会结直肠肛门外科学组. 中国慢性便秘诊治指南(2013年武汉) [J]. 中华消化杂志, 2013, 33(5): 291-296.
4
中华医学会外科学分会肛肠外科学组.修订《痔上黏膜环形切除术(PPH)暂行规范》会议纪要 [J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2005, 8(4): 374.
5
Zhang B,Ding JH,Zhao YJ, et al. Midterm outcome of stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation syndrome: a single-institution experience in China [J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2013, 19 (38): 6472-6478.
6
De la Torre L,Langer JC. Transanal endorectal pull-through for Hirschsprung disease: technique, Controversies, peals, pitfalls, and an organized approach to the management of postoperative obstructive symptoms [J]. Semin Pediatr Surg, 2010, 19(2): 96-106.
7
刘韦成,江从庆,钱群, 等.出口梗阻型便秘的外科治疗进展 [J]. 临床外科杂志. 2017, 25(4): 310-313.
8
刘智勇,杨关根,邓群, 等.部分吻合器经肛门直肠切除术联合Bresler术治疗直肠前突合并直肠内套叠疗效观察 [J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2016, 19(5): 566-570.
9
刘毅,崔金杰,杨新庆.经肛吻合器直肠部分切除术在排便障碍型便秘治疗中应用的长期效果评价 [J]. 临床外科杂志, 2015, 23(10): 744-746.
10
周雪涛,王振军,郑毅, 等.痔上黏膜环切术与经肛门直肠切除术的并发症相关因素分析 [J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2016, 31(12): 1011-1014.
11
Lu M,Yang B,Liu Y, et al. Procedure for prolapse and Hemorrhoids VS traditional surgery for outlet obstructive constipation [J]. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2015, 21(26): 8178-8183.
12
李春穴,刘高磊,童卫东, 等.直肠功能性悬吊术治疗直肠内脱垂30例分析 [J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2013, 33(11): 958-959.
13
Sileri P,Franceschilli L,de Luca E, et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse using biological mesh : postoperative and short-term functional results [J]. World Tournal of Gastroenterology, 2012, 16(3): 622-628.
14
Owais AE,Sumrien H,Mabey K, et al. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in male patients with internal or external rectal prolapse [J]. Colorectal Disease, 2014, 16(12): 995-1000.
[1] 王振宁, 杨康, 王得晨, 邹敏, 归明彬, 王雅楠, 徐明. 机器人与腹腔镜手术联合经自然腔道取标本对中低位直肠癌患者远期疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 437-442.
[2] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[3] 吴晖, 佴永军, 施雪松, 魏晓为. 两种解剖入路下行直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 40-43.
[4] 周世振, 朱兴亚, 袁庆港, 刘理想, 王凯, 缪骥, 丁超, 汪灏, 管文贤. 吲哚菁绿荧光成像技术在腹腔镜直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫中的应用效果分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 44-47.
[5] 徐逸男. 不同术式治疗梗阻性左半结直肠癌的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 72-75.
[6] 杨建波, 马欢, 黄小梅, 刘华柱. 结肠镜辅助下EMR、CSP和RFA术治疗直径<1cm结直肠息肉的疗效和安全性比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 76-79.
[7] 李代勤, 刘佩杰. 动态增强磁共振评估中晚期低位直肠癌同步放化疗后疗效及预后的价值[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 100-103.
[8] 陈樽, 王平, 金华, 周美玲, 李青青, 黄永刚. 肌肉减少症预测结直肠癌术后切口疝发生的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 639-644.
[9] 严虹霞, 王晓娟, 张毅勋. 2 型糖尿病对结直肠癌患者肿瘤标记物、临床病理及预后的影响[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 483-487.
[10] 赵磊, 刘文志, 林峰, 于剑, 孙铭骏, 崔佑刚, 张旭, 衣宇鹏, 于宝胜, 冯宁. 深部热疗在改善结直肠癌术后辅助化疗副反应及生活质量中的作用研究[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 488-493.
[11] 王国强, 张纲, 唐建坡, 张玉国, 杨永江. LINC00839 调节miR-17-5p/WEE1 轴对结直肠癌细胞增殖、凋亡和迁移的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 491-499.
[12] 孙晗, 于冰, 武侠, 周熙朗. 基于循环肿瘤DNA 甲基化的结直肠癌筛查预测模型的构建与验证[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 500-506.
[13] 陈倩倩, 袁晨, 刘基, 尹婷婷. 多层螺旋CT 参数、癌胚抗原、错配修复基因及病理指标对结直肠癌预后的影响[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 507-511.
[14] 王湛, 李文坤, 杨奕, 徐芳, 周敏思, 苏珈仪, 王亚丹, 吴静. 炎症指标在早发性结直肠肿瘤中的应用[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(09): 802-810.
[15] 刘福成, 赵欣, 乔海朋, 刘晓峰, 张翀, 张宗明. 保留左结肠动脉的肠系膜下动脉根部淋巴结清扫对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术的疗效影响[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 647-653.
阅读次数
全文


摘要