吻合器痔上黏膜环切术在治疗重度混合痔患者中的应用效果

目的：探究吻合器痔上黏膜环切（PPH）术在重度混合痔（SMH）患者中的应用效果及对患者术后肛门功能、视觉模拟评分法（VAS）评分及并发症发生风险的影响。方法：选取2020年2月至2021年12月收治的68例SMH患者,按照手术方法不同分为对照组和观察组各34例。对照组行外剥内扎术,观察组行PPH术+外剥内扎术。比较两组手术效果、术后肛门功能（直肠静息压、直肠排便收缩压、肛管最大收缩压）、VAS评分及并发症发生情况。结果：观察组治疗总有效率（94.12%）高于对照组（76.47%）(P<0.05)。术后,两组直肠静息压、肛管最大收缩压低于术前,但观察组高于对照组（P<0.05）;术后,两组直肠排便收缩压高于术前,且观察组高于对照组（P<0.05）。术后6 h、1 d、3 d两组均低于术前,且观察组VSA评分低于对照组（P<0.05）。观察组术后并发症发生率为8.82%,低于对照组的29.41%(P<0.05)。结论：PPH术+外剥内扎术治疗SMH手术效果显著,可减轻患者术后疼痛,改善肛门功能,安全性较好。     

吻合器痔上黏膜环切术加外痔切除术治疗重度混合痔的临床疗效

探讨吻合器痔上黏膜环切术加外痔切除术治疗重度混合痔的临床疗效。我院肛肠科收治100例重度混合痔患者作为调查对象,依据治疗方法的差异分为观察组和对照组各50例。其中对照组以外痔切除术+内痔套扎术进行治疗,观察组患者以吻合器痔上黏膜环切术加外痔切除术进行治疗。对比分析两组患者的临床效果。观察组与对照组患者的治疗总有效率分别为100%及98%,对比无显著差异性(P>0.05)。观察组患者手术时间及住院时间均短于对照组,对比存在显著差异性(P<0.05)。观察组并发症发生率为6%,对照组并发症发生率为32%,组间比较存在统计学差异(P<0.05)。吻合器痔上黏膜环切术加外痔切除术治疗重度混合痔疗效显著,可逐渐取代外痔切除术+内痔套扎术治疗方案。     

吻合器痔上黏膜环切术(PPH)治疗痔疮的应用分析

选取我院收治的痔疮患者50例,根据痔疮患者临床特点将其分为对照组和治疗组各25例。治疗组采用吻合器痔上黏膜环切术治疗,对照组采用传统的外剥内扎术治疗。观察比较两组患者手术时间、创面愈合时间、住院时间及术后并发症情况。结果经不同手术方法治疗后,观察组手术时间、创面愈合时间及住院时间均明显少于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);观察组并发症发生率为20%,明显低于对照组并发症发生率(60%),组间比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。对于痔疮患者,采用吻合器痔上黏膜环切术治疗可获得良好的临床疗效,而且在减少并发症和加快临床恢复具有明显的优势,值得临床推广应用。     

吻合器痔上黏膜环切术联合外痔切除术治疗重度混合痔的疗效分析

目的:探讨吻合器痔上黏膜环切术(procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids,PPH)联合外痔切除术治疗重度混合痔的临床疗效。方法:将2007年8月—2013年12月收治的84例重度混合痔患者随机分为研究组(PPH联合外痔切除术)与对照组(传统外剥内扎术),每组各42例。对比分析2组患者的手术时间、住院时间、创面愈合时间,术后72 h内出血、肛门疼痛、肛缘水肿、肛门溢液情况,以及术后6个月肛门狭窄的发生情况。结果:研究组的手术时间、住院时间、创面愈合时间明显短于对照组,研究组术后肛门疼痛、肛缘水肿、肛门溢液发生率低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:PPH联合外痔切除术是治疗重度混合痔的较佳术式。     

改良吻合器痔上黏膜环切术治疗混合痔的疗效

目的 观察混合痔应用改良吻合器痔上黏膜环切术（PPH）的疗效。方法 选取我院收治的90例环状混合痔患者,采用随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组各45例。对照组采用传统PPH术式进行治疗,观察组采用改良PPH术式进行治疗,对比两组患者的疗效。结果 两组出血量比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;观察组手术时间长于对照组,但恢复时间、疼痛评分以及住院费用短（低）于对照组,差异统计学意义（P<0.05）;观察组并发症发生率低于对照组,差异统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 改良PPH术治疗环状混合痔治疗,疗效显著,可减轻术后疼痛,缩短恢复时间,降低并发症发生率。     

吻合器痔上黏膜环切术联合Ligasure痔切除术治疗重度混合痔的疗效观察

目的探讨吻合器痔上黏膜环切术(PPH)联合Ligasure痔切除术治疗重度混合痔疗效。方法将2011年1月1日至2012年12月31日收治的80例混合痔(Ⅲ、Ⅳ度)患者按随机数字表法随机分为试验组和对照组,每组40例,试验组实施PPH术联合Ligasure痔切除术,对照组实施PPH+痔核缝扎术,比较两组疗效。结果试验组手术时间[(35.62±11.50)min vs.(52.58±14.86)min]、术中出血量[(21.89±7.14)ml vs.(48.65±12.80)ml]、术后疼痛持续时间[(1.89±1.02)d vs.(4.29±1.35)d]及住院时间[(4.71±1.69)d vs.(6.16±2.20)d]明显优于对照组,便中带血[(7.30±2.72)ml vs.(10.44±6.41)ml]、肛缘水肿时间[(2.80±1.27)d vs.(7.19±3.54)d]、创面愈合时间[(5.08±1.69)d vs.(8.46±3.07)d]明显优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 PPH术联合Ligasure痔切除术是一种安全有效的治疗重度混合痔的方法,值得在临床上推广。     

改良吻合器痔上黏膜环切术与痔自动套扎术分别联合外剥内扎术治疗中重度混合痔的效果比较

目的 比较改良吻合器痔上黏膜环切术(PPH)与痔自动套扎术(RPH)分别联合外剥内扎术治疗中重度混合痔的效果。方法 选择济源市人民医院2019年2月至2022年2月收治的中重度混合痔患者80例进行研究,采用双色球法分为两组,每组40例。对照组予以RPH联合外剥内扎术治疗,观察组予以PPH联合外剥内扎术治疗。比较两组效果。结果 两组间手术指标与术后恢复指标比较,差异未见统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后观察组Wexner评分低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但两组肛管相关指标比较,差异未见统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组并发症发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论 中重度混合痔采取改良PPH联合外剥内扎术治疗,与RPH联合外剥内扎术比较,可明显改善肛门功能Wexner评分,减少并发症发生。     

痔上黏膜环切联合外剥内扎术治疗重度混合痔的临床效果

选择患者80例,按照数字随机法分为两组各40例,观察组实施痔上黏膜环切联合外剥内扎术,对照组实施单纯痔上黏膜环切术,比较两组治疗后创面出血情况及术后1w创面肉芽生长情况,统计治疗前后疼痛VAS评分。结果两组治疗后创面出血情况差异无统计学意义(P0.05),治疗后两组疼痛VAS评分均低于治疗前(P0.05),观察组疼痛VAS评分均低于治疗后对照组(P0.05),创面中度及重度异常的比率显著低于对照组(P0.05)。PPH术联合外剥内扎术治疗重度混合痔,术式之间相互补充,能有效切除外痔,对未能完全复位痔体还可通过结扎处理,提高了临床效果。     

吻合器痔上黏膜环切除术治疗混合痔的临床分析

随机抽取收治的68例混合痔患者,将其分为试验组与对照组。试验组采用吻合器痔上黏膜环形切除术治疗,对照组给予传统外剥内扎术治疗,对比两组的治疗效果。试验组总有效率显著高于对照组,并发症发生率明显低于对照组,两组比较,差异存在统计学意义(P<0.05)。吻合器痔上黏膜环切术治疗混合痔,能够有效改善患者的临床症状及体征,并发症少,值得推广。     

吻合器痔上黏膜钉合术与传统痔手术的护理对照研究

目的探讨吻合器痔上黏膜钉合术(PPH术)与传统痔手术治疗重度痔疮的护理方法,以提高护理工作效率和质量。方法对PPH术(PPH组)和传统痔切除术(对照组)的心理护理、术前指导、术中配合、术后护理、手术时间、术后疼痛、平均住院天数和恢复工作时间等方面作统计学处理和对照研究。结果 PPH组患者手术时间为9．5±0．8 min,对照组为41±1．5 min,差别有统计学意义(P<0．05)。PPH组患者住院天数2．3±1．2 d,对照组 11．8±2．6 d,两组比较有统计学差异(P<0．05)。结论 PPH术治疗重度痔疮与传统方法相比,具有创伤小、恢复快、住院时间短、恢复工作早、无复发等优点,提高了护理工作效率,是保证护理质量的关键。     

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rubber band ligation versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy in patients with recurrent haemorrhoidal disease (Napoleon trial): Study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

BackgroundCurrently, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment option in recurrent haemorrhoidal disease (HD), due to a lack of solid evidence. The Napoleon trial aims to provide high-level evidence on the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of repeat rubber band ligation (RBL) versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy in patients with recurrent HD.MethodsThis is a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Patients with recurrent HD grade II and III, ≥18 years of age and who had at least two RBL treatments in the last three years are eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria include previous rectal or anal surgery, rectal radiation, pre-existing sphincter injury or otherwise pathologies of the colon and rectum, pregnancy, presence of hypercoagulability disorders, and medically unfit for surgery (ASA > III).Between June 2020 and May 2022, 558 patients will be randomized to receive either: (1) RBL, (2) sutured mucopexy, or (3) haemorrhoidectomy. The primary outcomes are recurrence after 52 weeks and patient-reported symptoms measured by the PROM-HISS. Secondary outcomes are impact on daily life, treatment satisfaction, early and late complication rates, health-related quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness, and budget impact. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in societal costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) (based on EQ-5D-5L), and healthcare costs per recurrence avoided.DiscussionThe best treatment option for recurrent HD remains unknown. The comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies in a randomized controlled trial will provide high-level evidence on the most (cost-) effective treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04101773     

吻合器痔上黏膜环形切除术与传统痔切除术临床疗效对比分析

目的评价吻合器痔上黏膜环形切除术(PPH)与传统痔切除术(MMH)治疗内痔的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2015年5月至12月我院对232例内痔患者行手术治疗的临床资料,其中105例采用PPH术式(观察组),127例采用MMH术式(对照组)。分析比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后疼痛持续时间、住院时间、住院费用、并发症情况及复发情况。结果所有患者均顺利完成手术。观察组与对照组相比,手术时间[(22.6±6.2)min vs.(31.9±7.4)min]、术后疼痛持续时间[(1.8±0.6)d vs.(4.6±1.1)d]、住院时间[(4.5±1.5)d vs.(8.5±1.0)d]均明显缩短,差异存在统计学意义(P<0.05),同时在术中出血量[(15.5±5.0)ml vs.(35.7±4.6)ml]及并发症方面也表现出一定优势,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后随访3~9个月,两组患者均无复发,但采用PPH术式的患者住院费用高于采用MMH术式的患者[(5 820±182)元vs.(3 024±168)元,P<0.05],差异存在统计学意义。结论与MMH术式相比,PPH治疗内痔更加安全可靠,具有临床应用价值。     

Argatroban versus Lepirudin in critically ill patients (ALicia): a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Critically ill patients often require renal replacement therapy accompanied by thrombocytopenia. Thrombocytopenia during heparin anticoagulation may be due to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with need for alternative anticoagulation. Therefore, we compared argatroban and lepirudin in critically ill surgical patients.

Methods

Following institutional review board approval and written informed consent, critically ill surgical patients more than or equal to 18 years with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, were randomly assigned to receive double-blind argatroban or lepirudin anticoagulation targeting an activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (aPTT) of 1.5 to 2 times baseline. In patients requiring continuous renal replacement therapy we compared the life-time of hemodialysis filters. We evaluated in all patients the incidence of bleeding and thrombembolic events.

Results

We identified 66 patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, including 28 requiring renal replacement therapy. Mean filter lifetimes did not differ between groups (argatroban 32 ± 25 hours (n = 12) versus lepirudin 27 ± 21 hours (n = 16), mean difference 5 hours, 95% CI −13 to 23, P = 0.227). Among all 66 patients, relevant bleeding occurred in four argatroban- versus eleven lepirudin-patients (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 14.0, P = 0.040). In the argatroban-group, three thromboembolic events occurred compared to two in the lepirudin group (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.1 to 4.4, P = 0.639). The incidence of confirmed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was 23% (n = 15) in our study population.

Conclusions

This first randomized controlled double-blind trial comparing two direct thrombin inhibitors showed comparable effectiveness for renal replacement therapy, but suggests fewer bleeds in surgical patients with argatroban anticoagulation.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00798525","term_id":"NCT00798525"}}NCT00798525. Registered 25 November 2008

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0588-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Aerobic exercise versus combined exercise therapy in women with fibromyalgia syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Sañudo B, Galiano D, Carrasco L, Blagojevic M, de Hoyo M, Saxton J. Aerobic exercise versus combined exercise therapy in women with fibromyalgia syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

Objective

To investigate the effects of supervised aerobic exercise (AE) and a combined program of supervised aerobic, muscle strengthening, and flexibility exercises (combined exercise [CE]) on important health outcomes in women with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).

Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting

Community-based supervised intervention.

Participants

Women (N=64) with a diagnosis of FMS according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria.

Intervention

Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 groups: supervised AE, supervised CE, or usual-care control. Exercise sessions were performed twice weekly (45–60min/session) for 24 weeks.

Main Outcome Measures

The primary outcome measure was the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ). Exploratory outcome measures were the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), aerobic capacity (6-minute walk test), hand-grip strength, and range of motion in the shoulders and hips.

Results

Compliance with both interventions was excellent, with women in the exercise groups attending more than 85% of sessions. A 14% to 15% improvement from baseline in total FIQ score was observed in the exercise groups (P≤.02) and was accompanied by decreases in BDI scores of 8.5 (P<.001) and 6.4 (P<.001) points in the AE and CE groups, respectively. Relative to nonexercising controls, CE evoked improvements in the SF-36 Physical Functioning (P=.003) and Bodily Pain (P=.003) domains and was more effective than AE for evoking improvements in the Vitality (P=.002) and Mental Health (P=.04) domains. Greater improvements also were observed in shoulder/hip range of motion and handgrip strength in the CE group.

Conclusion

Given the equivalent time commitment required for AE and CE, our results suggest that women with FMS can gain additional health benefits by engaging in a similar volume of CE.     

Treatment for anxiety: Mindfulness meditation versus escitalopram (TAME): Design of a randomized,controlled non-inferiority trial

Anxiety disorders (generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and agoraphobia) are common, distressing, and impairing. While pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy are first-line treatment strategies for anxiety disorders, many patients are reluctant to take psychiatric medication, and many prefer to avoid any kind of mental health treatment due to stigma or distrust of traditional medical care. We present the trial protocol for the first study comparing first-line medication treatment with Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), a popular mindfulness meditation training program, for the treatment of anxiety disorders. We will use a non-inferiority, comparative effectiveness trial design, in which individuals with diagnosed anxiety disorders will be randomized to either pharmacotherapy with escitalopram or MBSR for 8 weeks of treatment. Treatment outcome will be based on gold standard symptom severity measures assessed by trained independent evaluators blind to treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes will include key symptom and function measures, as well as tolerability and satisfaction with treatment. Findings will provide crucial information to inform decision making about the relative benefits of MBSR versus a first line medication for anxiety disorders by patients, medical care providers, healthcare insurers and other stakeholders.     

吡柔比星与丝裂霉素膀胱内灌注预防膀胱癌术后复发的随机对照研究

目的:比较吡柔比星与丝裂霉素膀胱灌注对预防浅表性膀胱移行细胞癌术后复发的疗效与副反应.方法:根据随机数字表87例浅表性膀胱癌术后的患者,随机分成两组,分别用吡柔比星和丝裂霉素作膀胱灌注化疗,灌注化疗期间行血常规、肝肾功能检查.定期随访行膀胱镜或B超观评价肿瘤复发时间.结果:吡柔比星组41例,平均随访18.8个月,7例(17.1％)复发,丝裂霉素组46例,平均随访时间19.4个月,10例(21.7％)复发.两组患者随访期间复发风险比较Hazard Ratio(HR)=0.71(95％CI:0.27～ 1.84,P=0.48);吡柔比星组局部副反应发生率为41.5％(17/41),全身副反应发生率为7.3％(3/41),膀丝裂霉素组局部副反应发生率为40.0％(17/46),全身副反应发生率为8.7％(4/46),两组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论:吡柔比星与丝裂霉素膀胱灌注在预防浅表性膀胱癌术后复发及副反应方面无差异.     

Atropine drops for drooling: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: Drooling occasionally occurs in cancer patients, impairing their quality of life. Recommended treatment includes the use of anticholinergic drugs, but there is a lack of scientific evidence supporting it; some recent reports tested the use of sublingual atropine, and further controlled studies have been recommended. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of sublingual atropine for the relief of drooling when compared with a placebo, in a population of patients with upper digestive cancer at the Gastroenterology 'Bonorino Udaondo' Hospital. POPULATION AND METHODOLOGY: From March 2002 to March 2003, 22 consecutive patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial (gender: M/F=14/8; median age=66, range: 4887 years). Patients were randomly allocated to receive atropine or placebo for 48 hours (phase 1), followed by a wash-out period of 48 hours, and final cross-over during the next 48 hours (phase 2). We evaluated the impact on sialorrhoea, choking, interference with daily and social activities, and global impact from drooling by visual analogue scales (VAS) at the beginning and end of each phase, as well as patients' choice at the end of the study. RESULTS: Mean score for sialorrhoea was 59.6 (SD=28.5) at baseline and 34.9 (SD=27.7) after 48 hours of receiving atropine; 62.1 (SD=27.6) at baseline and 40.7 (SD=30.5) after 48 hours of placebo. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures and two factors was not significant for either the variable sialorrhoea (P=0.58) or any of the secondary outcomes measured. No severe toxicity was reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of atropine over placebo in this population; we provide further discussion of results.     

High-volume versus standard-volume haemofiltration for septic shock patients with acute kidney injury (IVOIRE study): a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Purpose

Septic shock is a leading cause of death among critically ill patients, in particular when complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). Small experimental and human clinical studies have suggested that high-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) may improve haemodynamic profile and mortality. We sought to determine the impact of HVHF on 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with septic shock and AKI.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, open, multicentre clinical trial conducted at 18 intensive care units in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. A total of 140 critically ill patients with septic shock and AKI for less than 24 h were enrolled from October 2005 through March 2010. Patients were randomized to either HVHF at 70 mL/kg/h or standard-volume haemofiltration (SVHF) at 35 mL/kg/h, for a 96-h period.

Results

Primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. The trial was stopped prematurely after enrolment of 140 patients because of slow patient accrual and resources no longer being available. A total of 137 patients were analysed (two withdrew consent, one was excluded); 66 patients in the HVHF group and 71 in the SVHF group. Mortality at 28 days was lower than expected but not different between groups (HVHF 37.9 % vs. SVHF 40.8 %, log-rank test p = 0.94). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the secondary endpoints between treatment groups.

Conclusions

In the IVOIRE trial, there was no evidence that HVHF at 70 mL/kg/h, when compared with contemporary SVHF at 35 mL/kg/h, leads to a reduction of 28-day mortality or contributes to early improvements in haemodynamic profile or organ function. HVHF, as applied in this trial, cannot be recommended for treatment of septic shock complicated by AKI.