CAJ | 학술논문

目的：通过对比探讨基层医院痔疮患者应用PPH技术的安全性。方法选取湖北省黄石市黄石港社区卫生服务中心2008年1月～2012年12月收治的110例痔疮患者，随机均分为观察组（A组）与对照组（B组），观察组采用PPH术加外痔痔核切除术，对照组采用传统开放式手术。对2组患者的手术持续时间和术后恢复时间进行记录和对比，同时比较2组患者术后并发症的发生情况，包括肛门失禁、肛门狭窄、出血、感染、尿潴留等等。结果经过治疗，观察组（A组）手术平均时间为（21.3±5.7）min，对照组（B组）手术平均时间为（44.3±7.2）min，2组在手术平均时间上差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；在住院时间上，观察组（A组）平均（3.5±1.5）d，对照组（B组）（9.5±4.0）d，2组差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）,并发症情况上，观察组（A组）在肛门狭窄、出血、感染、尿潴留方面显著强于对照组（B组）（P<0.05）。结论基层医院PPH技术的安全性是优于传统开放式手术的，但仍存在一定问题有待进一步改进。
목적：통과대비탐토기층의원치창환자응용PPH기술적안전성。방법선취호북성황석시황석항사구위생복무중심2008년1월～2012년12월수치적110례치창환자，수궤균분위관찰조（A조）여대조조（B조），관찰조채용PPH술가외치치핵절제술，대조조채용전통개방식수술。대2조환자적수술지속시간화술후회복시간진행기록화대비，동시비교2조환자술후병발증적발생정황，포괄항문실금、항문협착、출혈、감염、뇨저류등등。결과경과치료，관찰조（A조）수술평균시간위（21.3±5.7）min，대조조（B조）수술평균시간위（44.3±7.2）min，2조재수술평균시간상차이유통계학의의（P<0.05）；재주원시간상，관찰조（A조）평균（3.5±1.5）d，대조조（B조）（9.5±4.0）d，2조차이유통계학의의（P<0.05）,병발증정황상，관찰조（A조）재항문협착、출혈、감염、뇨저류방면현저강우대조조（B조）（P<0.05）。결론기층의원PPH기술적안전성시우우전통개방식수술적，단잉존재일정문제유대진일보개진。
Objective By contrast, explore the primary hospital patients with hemorrhoids application the PPH technology security. Methods To select 110 cases in the hospital were treated from January 2008 to December 2012 hemorrhoids patients, randomly distributed equally to the observation group and the control group, the observation group PPH surgery plus external hemorrhoids hemorrhoids resection, the control group using traditional open surgery. Records and compared the two groups of patients with duration of surgery and postoperative recovery time, while the occurrence of postoperative complications, including incontinence, anal stenosis, bleeding, infection, urinary retention. Results After treatment, mean operation time of the observation group (21.3±5.7) min, mean operation time of the control group (44.3±7.2) min, with a statistically signiifcant difference (P<0.05) in the two groups in the mean operation time;Hospital stayon average observation group (3.5±1.5) d, the control group (9.5±4.0) d, two groups were statistically signiifcant differences (P<0.05), complications the observation group anal stricture, bleeding, infection, urine retention is clearly stronger than the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion The primary hospital PPH technology security is better than the traditional open surgery, but there are still some issues to be further improved.