Haemorrhoidectomy in outpatient practice.

Peter Labas, Bernard Ohradka, Marek Cambal, Juraj Olejnik, Juraj Fillo
{"title":"Haemorrhoidectomy in outpatient practice.","authors":"Peter Labas,&nbsp;Bernard Ohradka,&nbsp;Marek Cambal,&nbsp;Juraj Olejnik,&nbsp;Juraj Fillo","doi":"10.1080/11024150201680008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate our results of haemorrhoidectomy done as an outpatient procedure.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>University hospital Bratislava, Slovak Republic.</p><p><strong>Subject: </strong>256 patients who required haemorrhoidectomy in 1996-2001.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy under local (0.5% lignocaine with adrenaline 1:200,000, 100 ml) or epidural (0.5 bupivacaine, marcain, 20 ml; or 1% lignocaine, 20 ml).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Mortality, morbidity, need for admission to hospital, and acceptability to patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Day case haemorrhoidectomy is a safe and effective way of reducing costs without increasing morbidity, mortality, and is acceptable to most patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":22411,"journal":{"name":"The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11024150201680008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

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 1:200,000, 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%利多卡因伴肾上腺素1:20万,100 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
Influence of surgeon's volume on early outcome after total gastrectomy. Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic and open 360 degree fundoplication in mild and severe gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Factors that affect the variability in heart rate during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Risk factors for severe postoperative hypocalcaemia after operations for primary hyperparathyroidism. Effects of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor tyrphostin AG 556 on acute necrotising pancreatitis in rats.
×
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