Haemorrhoidectomy in outpatient practice

Peter Labas M.D., Ph.D., Bernard Ohradka, Marek Cambal, Juraj Olejnik, Juraj Fillo
{"title":"Haemorrhoidectomy in outpatient practice","authors":"Peter Labas M.D., Ph.D.,&nbsp;Bernard Ohradka,&nbsp;Marek Cambal,&nbsp;Juraj Olejnik,&nbsp;Juraj Fillo","doi":"10.1002/ejs.6161681109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>Objective:</i> To evaluate our results of haemorrhoidectomy done as an outpatient procedure.</p><p><i>Design:</i> Retrospective study.</p><p><i>Setting:</i> University hospital Bratislava, Slovak Republic.</p><p><i>Subject:</i> 256 patients who required haemorrhoidectomy in 1996–2001.</p><p><i>Interventions:</i> Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy under local (0.5% lignocaine with adrenaline 1:200000, 100 ml) or epidural (0.5 bupivacaine, marcain, 20 ml; or 1% lignocaine, 20 ml).</p><p><i>Main outcome measures:</i> Mortality, morbidity, need for admission to hospital, and acceptability to patients.</p><p><i>Results:</i> No patient died. All patients were observed in the recovery room for 0.5–8 hours (mean 5 hours). 23 of the 256 patients (9%) developed minor complications including bleeding (<i>n</i> = 6), pain (<i>n</i> = 15), anal discharge (<i>n</i> = 1), and retention of urine (<i>n</i> = 1). 5 patients (2%) were admitted for pain or retention of urine. During the first 3 days after operation 29 patients required increased analgesia for discomfort. 223 patients (87%) were satisfied with outpatient treatment, while the remaining would have preferred to be admitted to hospital.</p><p><i>Conclusion:</i> Day case haemorrhoidectomy is a safe and effective way of reducing costs without increasing morbidity, mortality, and is acceptable to most patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":100508,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Surgery","volume":"168 11","pages":"619-620"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ejs.6161681109","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejs.6161681109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate our results of haemorrhoidectomy done as an outpatient procedure.

Design: Retrospective study.

Setting: University hospital Bratislava, Slovak Republic.

Subject: 256 patients who required haemorrhoidectomy in 1996–2001.

Interventions: Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy under local (0.5% lignocaine with adrenaline 1:200000, 100 ml) or epidural (0.5 bupivacaine, marcain, 20 ml; or 1% lignocaine, 20 ml).

Main outcome measures: Mortality, morbidity, need for admission to hospital, and acceptability to patients.

Results: No patient died. All patients were observed in the recovery room for 0.5–8 hours (mean 5 hours). 23 of the 256 patients (9%) developed minor complications including bleeding (n = 6), pain (n = 15), anal discharge (n = 1), and retention of urine (n = 1). 5 patients (2%) were admitted for pain or retention of urine. During the first 3 days after operation 29 patients required increased analgesia for discomfort. 223 patients (87%) were satisfied with outpatient treatment, while the remaining would have preferred to be admitted to hospital.

Conclusion: Day case haemorrhoidectomy is a safe and effective way of reducing costs without increasing morbidity, mortality, and is acceptable to most patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
痔疮切除术在门诊实践
目的:评价痔切除术作为门诊手术的效果。设计:回顾性研究。单位:布拉迪斯拉发大学医院,斯洛伐克共和国。对象:1996-2001年间256例痔切除术患者。干预措施:局部(0.5%利多卡因加肾上腺素1:20000,100 ml)或硬膜外(0.5%布比卡因,marcain, 20 ml;或1%的利多卡因,20毫升)。主要结局指标:死亡率、发病率、住院需求和患者可接受性。结果:无患者死亡。所有患者在康复室观察0.5 ~ 8小时(平均5小时)。256例患者中有23例(9%)出现轻微并发症,包括出血(n = 6)、疼痛(n = 15)、肛门分泌物(n = 1)和尿潴留(n = 1)。5例(2%)患者因疼痛或尿潴留入院。术后前3天,29例患者因不适需要增加镇痛。223例患者(87%)对门诊治疗满意,其余患者倾向于住院治疗。结论:日例痔切除术是一种安全有效的方法,可降低成本,不增加发病率和死亡率,大多数患者可接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Masthead Masthead Masthead Importance of the early increase in intestinal permeability in critically Ill patients Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic and open 360° fundoplication in mild and severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1