| Objective:Hemorrhoidectomy is the most effective treatment for hemorrhoids, especially those are third and four degree.Recently,the Milligan-Morgan technique (MMH) is widely used in our country.However,the significant obstacles to patients seeking surgical management of their hemorrhoids is postoperative pain,bleeding,needing more time for healing,anal incontinence.At same time,the majority of trials showed Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy(FH) has been effective. However,many surgeons believe that it is probability of infection and anal stenosis.FH has not been accepted extensively.We design this trial to evaluate FH and MMH for provide a better choice,in the terms of the effective,complications and anal continence.Methods:40samples are divided into two groups randomly(The therapy group=20, The control group=20).The therapy group adopts the procedure of FH.The control group adopts MMH. Observing and analyzing the clinical curative effect,time of operation and treatment, postoperative complications,anal continence and so on.Results:Compared with the two groups,they have no obvious differences in the curing rate, operation time,hospital stay,anal continence,urinary retention,and postoperative infection.and postoperative pain in7days(P>0.05).They have obvious differences in the postoperative pain in24hours,time for returning to work,bleeding,pain in stool and internal sphincterotomy(P<0.05).Conclusion:FH has the same cure rate to MMH.FH has not result in infection and anal stenosis.FH has advantage in protecting internal sphincter. |
PDF Full Text Request