Peter Labas M.D., Ph.D., Bernard Ohradka, Marek Cambal, Juraj Olejnik, Juraj Fillo
{"title":"痔疮切除术在门诊实践","authors":"Peter Labas M.D., Ph.D., Bernard Ohradka, Marek Cambal, Juraj Olejnik, 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":"{\"title\":\"Haemorrhoidectomy in outpatient practice\",\"authors\":\"Peter Labas M.D., Ph.D., Bernard Ohradka, Marek Cambal, Juraj Olejnik, 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}","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}
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.