环形嵌顿痔分段切除剥离加压术与外剥内扎术后并发症的护理

目的 探讨环形嵌顿痔分段切除剥离加压术与外剥内扎术术后不同并发症的护理。方法 将84例环形嵌顿痔患者按手术方式分为两组，A组43例，行分段切除剥离加压术。B组41例，行外剥内扎术。结果 手术均顺利完成，患者均痊愈出院。两组术后并发症发生率比较，差异有显著性意义（P〈0．05）；A组发生6例肛缘水肿、1例排尿困难，B组3例肛门狭窄、2例肛缘水肿、5例排尿困难，但两组并发症构成情况比较，差异无显著性意义（P〉0．05）。结论 采用分段切除剥离加压术治疗环形嵌顿痔患者术后多发生肛缘水肿，而采用外剥内扎术治疗者术后多发生肛门狭窄和排尿困难，因此应针对不同术式采取护理措施预防并发症。     

两种术式治疗嵌顿痔的临床疗效及手术前后肛管静息压的比较

为探讨外剥内扎加侧方内括约肌松解术与常规外剥内扎术治疗嵌顿痔,哪种术式更好,本研究将60例嵌顿痔患者随机分为治疗组和对照组,各30例。治疗组采用外剥内扎加侧方内括约肌松解术治疗,对照组采用常规外剥内扎术治疗,对两组患者术后不同时点肛门疼痛、肛缘水肿程度,以及创面愈合时间、手术前后肛管静息压、术后2周直肠肛门抑制反射情况、总体疗效进行对比分析。结果显示,两组患者在总体疗效（治愈率和总有效率）、术后2周直肠肛门抑制反射情况方面比较差异均无统计学意义,P〉O．05;但治疗组创面愈合时间、术后肛管静息压、不同时点肛门疼痛、肛缘水肿程度方面均明显优于对照组,P〈O．05。结果表明,与外剥内扎术相比,外剥内扎加侧方内括约肌松解术治疗嵌顿痔能更好地解除内括约肌的痉挛,而且术后并发症轻,创面愈合时间短。     

超声刀与痔外剥内扎治疗急性嵌顿痔疗效比较

目的比较超声刀与痔外剥内扎术治疗急性嵌顿痔的临床疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析笔者所在医院2013年6月至2014年5月期间收治的42例急性嵌顿痔患者的临床资料,其中20例采用超声刀痔切除术,22例采用痔外剥内扎术,比较2组患者的疗效、术后疼痛评分、术后并发症、住院时间和术后1年复发情况。结果2组患者的疗效、手术时间和术后1年的复发率相近,而超声刀痔切除术组的疼痛较轻,并发症(出血、尿潴留、肛门狭窄、肛缘水肿等)较少,住院时间短,患者满意度较高。结论超声刀痔切除术创伤小、恢复快、疼痛轻、并发症少,是一种安全有效的手术方法。     

痔上黏膜环形切除钉合术治疗嵌顿痔的可行性疗效分析

嵌顿痔是肛肠科常见的急性病之一，归于重度痔之列。按以往所定痔上黏膜环形切除钉合术（PPH）手术规范，该病归于禁忌证范畴。通常采用外剥内扎术治疗，但往往患者术后痛苦较大，愈合较慢，住院时间及恢复时间长。故我们根据嵌顿痔的病理机制和肛门的生理特点，改用PPH术治疗该病。由于不剥离肛缘处血栓，既保护肛管皮肤，又显著减轻患者术后痛苦，缩短住院时间和提高了治疗效果。现将我们的手术经验以及与外剥内扎术的疗效比较介绍如下。     

内痔缝扎外痔网眼样剥离术治疗急性嵌顿性混合痔的临床疗效

为探讨内痔缝扎外痔网眼样剥离术治疗急性嵌顿性混合痔的临床疗效,将58例急性嵌顿性混合痔患者随机分为观察组和对照组,各29例,观察组采用内痔缝扎外痔网眼样剥离术治疗,对照组采用常规痔外切内扎术治疗,对比两组总体疗效及术后创口疼痛、肛缘水肿、创口愈合时间、肛门狭窄等情况。结果显示,两组患者均治愈,治愈率均为100％;但观察组创VI愈合时间明显短于对照组,P〈0.05;创口疼痛、肛缘水肿、肛门狭窄评分明显低于对照组,P〈0.05。结果表明,内痔缝扎外痔网眼样剥离术治疗急性嵌顿性混合痔操作简单、安全可行、疗效满意,而且术后并发症轻,创面愈合快,值得临床推广应用。     

改良内扎外剥加扩肛术治疗急性嵌顿痔60例疗效观察

目的探讨改良内扎外剥加扩肛术治疗急性嵌顿痔的临床疗效。方法选取60例急性嵌顿痔患者,采用内痔逢合外痔小切口切除剥离加扩肛术治疗,观察其临床疗效以及并发症情况。结果60例均一次手术治愈,术后无内痔脱出,无大出血、肛门直肠狭窄及肛外残留物,创口平均愈合时间13．5d。结论改良内扎外剥加扩肛术治疗急性嵌顿痔,具有疗效确切、损伤小、操作简单及并发症少等优点,     

痔上黏膜环形切除钉合术治疗嵌顿痔的可行性疗效分析

嵌顿痔是肛肠科常见的急性病之一,归于重度痔之列。按以往所定痔上黏膜环形切除钉合术(PPH)手术规范[1],该病归于禁忌证范畴。通常采用外剥内扎术治疗,但往往患者术后痛苦较大,愈合较慢,住院时间及恢复时间长。故我们根据嵌顿痔的病理机制和肛门的生理特点,改用PPH术治疗该病。由于不剥离肛缘处血栓,既保护肛管皮肤,又显著减轻患者术后痛苦,缩短住院时间和提高了治疗效果。现将我们的手术经验以及与外剥内扎术的疗效比较介绍如下。1资料和方法1.1一般资料PPH组共36例,其中男21例,女15例;年龄21～65岁,平均37.5岁;病程0.5～6d,平均1.5d。…     

外剥内扎弧形切除缝合术治疗环状混合痔60例临床观察

为解决环状混合痔术后肛门狭窄、残留痔、皮桥水肿等并发症,采用环状混合痔外剥内扎术、保留皮桥处痔核弧形切除缝合术加肛门内括约肌侧切松解术治疗环状混合痔60例,结果显示,脱出、疼痛、出血等症状消失,治愈率100％。结果表明,外剥内扎弧形切除缝合术治疗环状混合痔疗效肯定,避免了术后肛门狭窄、皮桥创缘水肿及残留痔等并发症和后遗症。     

外切与外剥内扎硬注术治疗环状嵌顿痔疗效比较

目的:对比外切与外剥内扎硬注术治疗环状嵌顿痔的疗效和并发症。方法:回顾性分析156例环状嵌顿痔患者的临床资料,78例接受外切内扎硬注术为A组,78例接受外剥内扎硬注术为B组,对比两组治疗前后的症状评分变化情况,对比两组术口愈合时间和并发症发生情况。结果:手术治疗后1个月,A组症状评分(0.07±0.32)分,B组(0.06±0.34)分(P0.05);A组术口愈合时间(15.61±2.01)d,B组(18.58±2.81)d(P0.05);两组术后1周便血、肛缘赘皮、肛门失禁、肛管狭窄发生率的对比,差异没有统计学意义(P0.05)。A组术后1周肛门疼痛发生率7.69%,排尿困难发生率3.85%,肛缘水肿发生率3.85%,均显著低于B组(P0.05)。结论:外切内扎硬注术治疗环状嵌顿痔具有良好的临床疗效,可有效缩短术口愈合时间,减少肛门疼痛、排尿困难等术后并发症的发生率。     

控制性切断肛门内括约肌在嵌顿痔治疗中的应用（附38例分析）

采用柳叶小切口剥扎术加控制性切断肛门内括约肌的方法治疗嵌顿痔38例（治疗组），并与采用柳叶小切口外剥内扎术治疗的32例（对照组）进行比较。结果显示，治疗组术后剧烈疼痛明显减轻，疼痛减轻有效率100％，水肿发生率7．9％，无肛门狭窄和肛门失禁发生，创面愈合时间平均11d，住院天数9～14d。结果表明，嵌顿痔治疗中应用控制性切断肛门内括约肌临床疗效确切，术后疼痛显著减轻，恢复快，术后无肛门失禁和肛门狭窄。     

Body composition assessment and methodology in nonathletic and athletic adolescent and adult males and females

The purpose of this review is to outline methodology for assessing body composition utilizing anthropometric and densitometric techniques. The objective of body composition assessment is to measure body fat and lean body mass. The quantity of these components varies due to growth, physical activity, dietary regimens, and aging. Anthropometric techniques incorporate selected skinfolds, circumferences, skeletal widths, or other variables to estimate body composition within k2.0-4.0%. These techniques are adequate for field testing of groups or individuals, but are population specific. Densitometry measures body volume irrespective of physique, sex, or age. This laboratory technique estimates body composition within 1.0-2.0%, is more difficult to administer, but is not population specific. Some limitation exists with any present technique due to biological variability and incomplete research of reference body composition in children, females, and the aged. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1984;5(6):336-347.     

Perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality after above-knee and below-knee amputations in diabetics and nondiabetics

We performed a retrospective review of a vascular surgery quality assurance database to evaluate the perioperative and long-term morbidity and mortality of above-knee amputations (AKA, n = 234) and below-knee amputations (BKA, n = 720) and to examine the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) (181 of AKA and 606 of BKA patients). All patients in the database who had AKA or BKA from 1990 to May 2001 were included in the study. Perioperative 30-day cardiac morbidity and mortality and 3-yr and 10-yr mortality after AKA or BKA were assessed. The effect of DM on 30-day cardiac outcome was assessed by multivariate logistic regression and the effect on long-term survival was assessed by Cox regression analysis. The perioperative cardiac event rate (cardiac death or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was at least 6.8% after AKA and at most 3.6% after BKA. Median survival was significantly less after AKA (20 mo) than BKA (52 mo) (P < 0.001). DM was not a significant predictor of perioperative 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.76 [0.39-1.49]; P = 0.43) or 3-yr survival (Hazard ratio, 1.03 [0.86-1.24]; P = 0.72) but predicted 10-yr mortality (Hazard ratio, 1.34 [1.04-1.73]; P = 0.026). Significant predictors of the 30-day perioperative mortality were the site of amputation (odds ratio, 4.35 [2.56-7.14]; P < 0.001) and history of renal insufficiency (odds ratio, 2.15 [1.13-4.08]; P = 0.019). AKA should be triaged as a high-risk surgery while BKA is an intermediate-risk surgery. Long-term survival after AKA or BKA is poor, regardless of the presence of DM.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting: guidelines for prevention and treatment

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) causes patient discomfort, lowers patient satisfaction, and increases care requirements. Opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) may also occur if opioids are used to treat postoperative pain. These guidelines aim to provide recommendations for the prevention and treatment of both problems. A working group was established in accordance with the charter of the Sociedad Espa?ola de Anestesiología y Reanimación. The group undertook the critical appraisal of articles relevant to the management of PONV and OINV in adults and children early and late in the perioperative period. Discussions led to recommendations, summarized as follows: 1) Risk for PONV should be assessed in all patients undergoing surgery; 2 easy-to-use scales are useful for risk assessment: the Apfel scale for adults and the Eberhart scale for children. 2) Measures to reduce baseline risk should be used for adults at moderate or high risk and all children. 3) Pharmacologic prophylaxis with 1 drug is useful for patients at low risk (Apfel or Eberhart 1) who are to receive general anesthesia; patients with higher levels of risk should receive prophylaxis with 2 or more drugs and baseline risk should be reduced (multimodal approach). 4) Dexamethasone, droperidol, and ondansetron (or other setrons) have similar levels of efficacy; drug choice should be made based on individual patient factors. 5) The drug prescribed for treating PONV should preferably be different from the one used for prophylaxis; ondansetron is the most effective drug for treating PONV. 6) Risk for PONV should be assessed before discharge after outpatient surgery or on the ward for hospitalized patients; there is no evidence that late preventive strategies are effective. 7) The drug of choice for preventing OINV is droperidol.