Laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LHP) using a 1470 nm radial fibre laser – early efficacy assessment based on own data

S. Glinkowski, D. Marcinkowska
{"title":"Laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LHP) using a 1470 nm radial fibre laser – early efficacy assessment based on own data","authors":"S. Glinkowski, D. Marcinkowska","doi":"10.25121/nm.2020.27.4.129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Haemorrhoidal disease is one of the most common colorectal conditions. Although many treatment methods have been developed, Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy remains the most widely practised surgical technique. Aim. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy and laser hemorrhoidoplasty using a 1470 nm radial fibre laser. The following variables were analysed: procedure duration, length of procedure-related hospital stay, postoperative pain, and time to return to normal daily activities. Material and methods. The study group included 178 patients (women 45%, men 55%), including 82 patients undergoing laser hemorrhoidoplasty and 96 patients undergoing Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. The mean age of the patients was 50 years, with the youngest patient aged 19 years and the oldest patient aged 65 years. The mean age of patients was lower in the laser hemorrhoidoplasty group (54.23 vs 45.15 years). The mean follow-up was 14 months (3-35 years). Results. The mean duration of laser hemorrhoidoplasty was shorter than that of Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy (13.9 vs. 22.3 min). There was no need for a revision surgery after laser hemorrhoidoplasty, whereas reoperation was necessary in three cases after classical hemorrhoidectomy. The mean and the shortest time of return to work was 14 and 5 days for laser hemorrhoidoplasty compared to 21 and 15 days for classical hemorrhoidectomy, respectively. Opioid analgesics were needed in 51% of patients after Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy and none of the patients after laser hemorrhoidoplasty. Conclusions. Laser hemorrhoidoplasty is an effective treatment approach in grade II-IV haemorrhoidal disease. It is associated with less pain compared to conventional hemorrhoidectomy. The duration of both the procedure itself and hospital stay is shorter after laser hemorrhoidoplasty compared to Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. The return to normal daily activities is also faster in the first case.","PeriodicalId":311146,"journal":{"name":"Nowa Medycyna","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nowa Medycyna","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25121/nm.2020.27.4.129","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

Introduction. Haemorrhoidal disease is one of the most common colorectal conditions. Although many treatment methods have been developed, Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy remains the most widely practised surgical technique. Aim. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy and laser hemorrhoidoplasty using a 1470 nm radial fibre laser. The following variables were analysed: procedure duration, length of procedure-related hospital stay, postoperative pain, and time to return to normal daily activities. Material and methods. The study group included 178 patients (women 45%, men 55%), including 82 patients undergoing laser hemorrhoidoplasty and 96 patients undergoing Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. The mean age of the patients was 50 years, with the youngest patient aged 19 years and the oldest patient aged 65 years. The mean age of patients was lower in the laser hemorrhoidoplasty group (54.23 vs 45.15 years). The mean follow-up was 14 months (3-35 years). Results. The mean duration of laser hemorrhoidoplasty was shorter than that of Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy (13.9 vs. 22.3 min). There was no need for a revision surgery after laser hemorrhoidoplasty, whereas reoperation was necessary in three cases after classical hemorrhoidectomy. The mean and the shortest time of return to work was 14 and 5 days for laser hemorrhoidoplasty compared to 21 and 15 days for classical hemorrhoidectomy, respectively. Opioid analgesics were needed in 51% of patients after Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy and none of the patients after laser hemorrhoidoplasty. Conclusions. Laser hemorrhoidoplasty is an effective treatment approach in grade II-IV haemorrhoidal disease. It is associated with less pain compared to conventional hemorrhoidectomy. The duration of both the procedure itself and hospital stay is shorter after laser hemorrhoidoplasty compared to Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. The return to normal daily activities is also faster in the first case.
1470nm径向光纤激光痔疮成形术——基于自身数据的早期疗效评估
介绍。痔疮病是最常见的结直肠疾病之一。尽管已经开发了许多治疗方法,米利根-摩根痔疮切除术仍然是最广泛应用的手术技术。的目标。本研究的目的是比较使用1470 nm径向光纤激光器的Milligan-Morgan痔疮切除术和激光痔疮成形术的有效性。分析了以下变量:手术时间、手术相关住院时间、术后疼痛和恢复正常日常活动的时间。材料和方法。研究组纳入178例患者(女性45%,男性55%),其中激光痔疮成形术患者82例,Milligan-Morgan痔疮切除术患者96例。患者平均年龄50岁,年龄最小19岁,年龄最大65岁。激光痔疮成形术组患者的平均年龄较低(54.23岁vs 45.15岁)。平均随访14个月(3 ~ 35年)。结果。激光痔疮成形术的平均时间短于Milligan-Morgan痔疮切除术(13.9 min vs. 22.3 min)。激光痔疮成形术后不需要翻修手术,而经典痔疮切除术后需要再次手术的3例。激光痔疮成形术的平均和最短恢复工作时间分别为14天和5天,而传统痔疮切除术的平均和最短恢复工作时间分别为21天和15天。51%的米利根-摩根痔疮切除术患者需要阿片类镇痛药,而激光痔疮成形术患者无需阿片类镇痛药。结论。激光痔疮成形术是治疗II-IV级痔疮的有效方法。与传统的痔疮切除术相比,它的疼痛更少。与米利根-摩根痔疮切除术相比,激光痔疮成形术的过程本身和住院时间都更短。在第一种情况下,恢复正常的日常活动也更快。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信