目的 探討在局部麻醉下行痔上黏膜環形切除釘合術（procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids，PPH）治療重度內痔的可行性及臨床應用價值。方法 筆者所在醫院科室從2005年起對32例Ⅲ度及Ⅳ度脫垂性內痔（含1例混合痔）患者均采用苯巴比妥＋氫溴酸東莨菪堿＋利多卡因肛管直腸環形局部浸潤麻醉行PPH術，對其麻醉效果、手術時間、術中及術后疼痛、尿潴留、術后感染、肛門狹窄、住院時間、治療滿意度等進行分析。結果 32例患者均順利完成手術，有1例術中改行低位連續硬膜外麻醉，1例輔加鎮靜劑及鎮痛劑。術后28例對疼痛能耐受，4例需鎮痛藥物；1例患者有肛門墜脹感；所有患者傷口均一期愈合，無尿潴留、術后感染、出血、肛門狹窄等并發癥發生；31例對療效滿意，有1例感肛門墜脹，行溫水坐浴及痔瘡膏納肛治療1周后緩解。住院時間3～6d，平均4d。32例患者均進行有效隨訪，隨訪時間2～4個月，平均3個月，無大便失禁或復發，肛門控便能力均可。結論 局部麻醉下行PPH術治療重度內痔是一種安全可行的手術方法，麻醉操作護理簡單，療效確切，術后并發癥少，術后恢復快，并可減少醫療費用。
Objective To evaluate the safety and ascendancy of small caliber stapler application for anterior resection in ultra-low rectal cancer with anal sphincter preservation. Methods A retrospective analysis of the data of 60 cases of ultra-low rectal cancer treated by anterior resection with anal sphincter preservation by double stapling technique according to TME principle between June 2006 and June 2009 were undertaken. The 60 patients were divided into two groups, each group included 30 cases. One group adopted 33 mm stapler and another group adopted 29 mm stapler, and then the profiles of medi-operation, post-operation, and prognosis were assessed. Results Time of simple anastomose in operation was (9.0±3.3) min in 33 mm stapler group and (6.0±2.6) min in 29 mm stapler group, and there was significant difference between them (P=0.022 5). There were 6 cases needed to be restored because of lesion during operation or dys-anastomosis in 33 mm stapler group, while 2 cases in 29 mm stapler group, there was significant difference between them (P=0.030 1). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the time for operation, leakage, bleeding, stenosis, anastomotic recurrence, and fecal incontinence after operation or length of stay. Conclusion The application of 29 mm stapler not only can shorten time for anastomose and step down the degree of difficulty, but also dosen’t increase stenostomia and other complications.
ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of powered anastomosis versus mechanical anastomosis in gastrointestinal surgery. MethodsComputerized searches were conducted in PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, and CBM databases to collect studies comparing the safety and efficacy of powered versus mechanical anastomosis in gastrointestinal surgery. The search period was from the inception of each database to March 2025. Literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were extracted, and the risk of bias was assessed. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed using the Metan package in Stata/MP 17.0 software. ResultsA total of 15 observational studies (13 retrospective and 2 prospective) involving 21,424 patients were finally included, with 9 823 patients in the experimental group (powered anastomosis) and 11 601 patients in the control group (mechanical anastomosis). The NOS scores of all included studies were ≥5 points. Meta-analysis results showed that, compared to the mechanical anastomosis group, the powered anastomosis group had significantly lower incidence rates of anastomotic leakage [RR=0.60, 95%CI (0.37, 0.96), P=0.031], postoperative complications [RR=0.68, 95%CI (0.53, 0.86), P<0.01], intraoperative bleeding rate [RR=0.29, 95%CI (0.15, 0.56), P<0.01], and 30-day readmission rate [RR=0.62, 95%CI (0.39, 0.97), P<0.05]. No statistically significant differences were found in anastomotic stenosis [RR=0.53, 95%CI (0.18, 1.57), P=0.25], intraoperative blood loss [SMD=?0.03, 95%CI (?0.15, 0.08), P=0.57], operation time [SMD=?0.00, 95%CI (?0.08, 0.07), P=0.90], or postoperative hospital stay [SMD=?0.05, 95%CI (?0.13, 0.02), P=0.15]. ConclusionIn gastrointestinal surgery, powered anastomosis may offer potential advantages over traditional mechanical anastomosis in improving the aforementioned safety and efficacy outcomes.
