| 摘要: |
| 目的：比较 Delorme 术与 PPH 联合直肠周围三间隙硬化剂注射术治疗Ⅱ度直肠脱垂的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析 30 例Ⅱ度直肠脱垂患者，15 例应用 Delorme 术治疗，15 例应用 PPH 联合直肠周围三间隙硬化剂注射术治疗，比较两种手术方法治疗Ⅱ度直肠脱垂的临床疗效及手术相关问题。结果：两组在总有效率、平均住院时间、术后肛门功能改善方面无显著差异（P>0.05）。Delorme 术组术中出血量（100.0±15.5）mL、手术时间（60.0±11.3）min、治疗费用（8023.5±201.5）元与 PPH 术组术中出血量（25.0±8.6）mL、手术时间（45.0±9.2）min、治疗费用（11 016.5±276.9）元比较，差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论：两组手术治疗Ⅱ度直肠脱垂均安全有效，手术操作均相对简单，各有优缺点，Delorme 术组在病例选择面及费用方面占优，PPH 术组在手术时间、出血量方面占优。二组术后均可改善肛门功能，但改善程度不一，个体差异较大。 |
| 关键词: 直肠脱垂 Delorme 术 PPH 术 硬化剂注射术 |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1007-6948.2019.06.021 |
|
| 基金项目: |
|
| Clinical Observation of Delorme and PPH Combined with Sclerotherapy Injection in Treatment of Second Degree Rectal Prolapse |
| LIU Qing-sheng,ZHANG Heng |
| Department of Anorectal Surgery, Kunming Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunming (650500), China |
| Abstract: |
| Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of Delorme operation and PPH combined with perirectal three-gap sclerosing agent injection in the treatment of second-degree rectal prolapse. Methods A retrospective analysis was made of 30 patients with second-degree rectal prolapse, 15 cases with Delorme operation and 15 cases with PPH combined with three-gap perirectal sclerotherapy injection. The clinical efficacy and surgical related problems of two surgical methods for second degree rectal prolapse were compared. Results There was no significant difference in total effective rate, average hospital stay and improvement of anal function between the two groups (P>0.05). There were significant differences in intraoperative bleeding volume (100.0±15.5) mL, operation time (60.0±11.3) min, treatment cost (8023.5±201.5) yuan and bleeding volume (25.0±8.6) mL, operation time (45.0±9.2) min, treatment cost (11016.5±276.9) yuan between Delorme group and PPH group (P<0.05). Conclusion The two groups were safe and effective in the treatment of second degree rectal prolapse. The operation was relatively simple, with advantages and disadvantages. Delorme group was superior in case selection and cost, and PPH group was superior in operation time and bleeding volume. Postoperative anal function was improved in both groups, but the degree of improvement was different and the individual difference was great. |
| Key words: Rectal prolapse Delorme PPH sclerotherapy |
