Abstract:Aim: To compare the clinical efficacies of two surgical procedures for hemorrhoid rectal prolapse with outlet obstruction-induced constipation. Methods: One hundred eight inpatients who underwent surgery for outlet obstructive constipation caused by internal rectal prolapse and circumferential hemorrhoids at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from June 2012 to June 2013 were prospectively included in the study. The patients with rectal prolapse hemorrhoids with outlet obstruction-induced constipation were randomly divided into two groups to undergo either a procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) (n = 54) or conventional surgery (n = 54; control group). Short-term (operative time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative urinary retention, postoperative perianal edema, and postoperative pain) and long-term (postoperative anal stenosis, postoperative sensory anal incontinence, postoperative recurrence, and postoperative difficulty in defecation) clinical effects were compared between the two groups. The short- and long-term efficacies of the two procedures were determined. Results: In terms of short-term clinical effects, operative time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the PPH group than in the control group (24.36 ± 5.16 min vs 44.27 ± 6.57 min, 2.1 ± 1.4 d vs 3.6 ± 2.3 d, both P < 0.01). The incidence of postoperative urinary retention was higher in the PPH group than in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (48.15% vs 37.04%). The incidence of perianal edema was significantly lower in the PPH group (11.11% vs 42.60%, P < 0.05). The visual analogue scale scores at 24 h after surgery, first defecation, and one week after surgery were significantly lower in the PPH group (2.9 ± 0.9 vs 8.3 ± 1.1, 2.0 ± 0.5 vs 6.5 ± 0.8, and 1.7 ± 0.5 vs 5.0 ± 0.7, respectively, all P < 0.01). With regard to long-term clinical effects, the incidence of anal stenosis was lower in the PPH group than in the control group, but the difference was not significant (1.85% vs 5.56%). The incidence of sensory anal incontinence was significantly lower in the PPH group (3.70% vs 12.96%, P < 0.05). The incidences of recurrent internal rectal prolapse and difficulty in defecation were lower in the PPH group than in the control group, but the differences were not significant (11.11% vs 16.67% and 12.96% vs 24.07%, respectively). Conclusion: PPH is superior to the traditional surgery in the management of outlet obstructive constipation caused by internal rectal prolapse with circumferential hemorrhoids.

Retrospective Study on the Complications after Procedure for Prolapse and Hemorrhoids Based on Pathology

Clinical application of PPH in treatment of severe hemorrhoids

The Investigation of Risk Factors of Post-Polypectomy Emergency Hemorrhage

Complications and prevention of procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids

Evaluation of the Procedure for Prolapse and Hemorrhoids:Three Years'experiences

Reasons and countermeasure of complications after procedure for prolapse and haemorrhoids

Comparative Research of Tissue-selecting Therapy and Precedure for Prolapse and Hemorrhoids on Treating Hemorrhoids

Procedure for Prolapsed Hemorrhoids Treatment for III, IV Hemorrhoids Efficacy

Comparison of Efficacy Between Procedure for Prolapse and Hemorrhoids and Open Hemorrhoidectomy

A Clinical Analysis of Procedure for Prolapse and Hemorrhoids in the Treatment of 320 Severe Hemorrhoids

[Re-Evaluation of the Application of Procedure for Prolapse and Hemorrhoids in the Last 15 Years].

Comparison of clinical outcomes of multi-point umbrella suturing and single purse suturing with two-point traction after procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) surgery

Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids vs traditional surgery for outlet obstructive constipation

Comparison of Curative Effect Between Tissue-Selecting Therapy Stapler and Procedure for Prolapse and Hemorrhoids for Stage Ⅲ and Ⅳ Hemorrhoids

Therapeutic analysis of 226 cases with severe hemorrhoids treated by PPH

The Use of the Improvement of the Procedure for Prolapse & Hemorrhoids in Serious Hemorrhoids

[Efficacy of the procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids combined with external hemorrhoids excision in the treatment of III or IV mixed hemorrhoids]

[Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids with Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of prolapsed hemorrhoids]

A Clinical Study for Edema after PPH of External Hemorrhoids Prophylactic Incision

Therapeutic Efficacy of Procedure for Prolapse and Hemorrhoid for Outlet Obstructive Constipation in Female Patients:Analysis of 36 Cases

Clinical Investigation of RPH Combined with Hemorrhoidlysant Injection in the Treatment of Hemorrhoids for 80 Cases