切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版) ›› 2025, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (04) : 381 -385. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-2015.2025.04.016

论著

内镜下套扎及硬化治疗Ⅰ~Ⅱ度内痔的长期随访研究
王明辉, 李文波, 李群, 王静, 董倩倩, 范飞飞, 李灵敏, 刘晓峰()   
  1. 250031 济南,中国人民解放军联勤保障部队第九六○医院消化内科
  • 收稿日期:2024-07-07 出版日期:2025-08-01
  • 通信作者: 刘晓峰
  • 基金资助:
    山东省医药卫生科技项目(202303031627); 国家自然科学基金青年项目(81900467)

Long-term follow-up study of endoscopic ligation and sclerotherapy for Grade Ⅰ-Ⅱ internal hemorrhoids

Minghui Wang, Wenbo Li, Qun Li, Jing Wang, Qianqian Dong, Feifei Fan, Lingmin Li, Xiaofeng Liu()   

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, The 960th Hospital of Chinese PLA Joint Logistics Support Force, Jinan 250031, China
  • Received:2024-07-07 Published:2025-08-01
  • Corresponding author: Xiaofeng Liu
引用本文:

王明辉, 李文波, 李群, 王静, 董倩倩, 范飞飞, 李灵敏, 刘晓峰. 内镜下套扎及硬化治疗Ⅰ~Ⅱ度内痔的长期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(04): 381-385.

Minghui Wang, Wenbo Li, Qun Li, Jing Wang, Qianqian Dong, Feifei Fan, Lingmin Li, Xiaofeng Liu. Long-term follow-up study of endoscopic ligation and sclerotherapy for Grade Ⅰ-Ⅱ internal hemorrhoids[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Digestion and Medical Imageology(Electronic Edition), 2025, 15(04): 381-385.

目的

探讨内镜下套扎及硬化治疗Ⅰ~Ⅱ度内痔的远期有效性和安全性。

方法

回顾性分析2019年1月至2021年6月中国人民解放军联勤保障部队第九六〇医院收治的Ⅰ~Ⅱ度内痔患者的临床资料,按不同内镜治疗方式分为套扎组(32例)、硬化组(45例),随访36~63个月,中位随访时间47.5个月,比较两组的治疗效果、复发情况、满意度、并发症发生情况。

结果

套扎组治愈率、显效率、总有效率分别为84.4%、12.5%、96.9%,硬化组分别为77.8%、20.0%、97.8%,两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗有效的患者中,套扎组的复发率高于硬化组(22.6%比13.6%),但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。套扎组中位复发时间为13.5个月,硬化组中位复发时间为12.0个月,套扎组的满意度为93.8%,硬化组的满意度为95.6%,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。套扎组术后肛门疼痛、肛门坠胀感明显较硬化组严重,发生率分别为41.6%比2.2%、56.2%比6.7%,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组术后出血、发热发生率较低,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);随访期内,套扎组有3例术后发生肛瘘及肛周脓肿,分别发生于术后1、6、12个月,均追加外科手术后治愈,硬化组无此类情况发生。

结论

套扎与硬化术治疗Ⅰ~Ⅱ度内痔均具有良好的治疗效果,二者有效率、复发率相近,但硬化治疗的术后并发症发生率更低。对Ⅰ~Ⅱ度这类较轻的内痔,硬化治疗可能更具优势。

Objective

To investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic ligation and sclerotherapy for grade Ⅰ-Ⅱ internal hemorrhoids.

Methods

Clinical data of patients with grade Ⅰ-Ⅱ internal hemorrhoids admitted to the 960th Hospital of Chinese PLA Joint Logistics Support Force from January 2019 to June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into ligation group (32 cases) and sclerotic group (45 cases) according to different endoscopic treatment methods. The follow-up time was 36-63 months, with a median follow-up time of 47.5 months. The therapeutic effect, recurrence, satisfaction and complications of the two groups were compared.

Results

The cure rate, effective rate and total effective rate of the two groups were compared, which were 84.4%, 12.5% and 96.9% in the ligation group and 77.8%, 20.0% and 97.8% in the sclerotic group, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Among the patients with effective treatment, the recurrence rate in the ligation group was higher than that in the sclerotic group (22.6% vs. 13.6%), but there was no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). The median recurrence time was 13.5 months in the ligation group and 12.0 months in the sclerotic group. Satisfaction was 93.8% in the ligation group and 95.6% in the sclerotic group, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Postoperative anal pain and anal distension in the ligation group were significantly more severe than those in the sclerotic group (41.6% vs. 2.2%, 56.2% vs. 6.7%), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative hemorrhage and fever was lower between the two groups, but there was no statistical difference (P>0.05). During the follow-up period, there were 3 cases of anal fistula and perianal abscess in the ligation group, which occurred 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery, respectively, and were cured after additional surgery, while no such cases occurred in the sclerotic group.

Conclusion

Both ligation and sclerotherapy have excellent curative effect in the treatment of grade Ⅰ-Ⅱ internal hemorrhoids, with similar effective rate and recurrence rate, but sclerotherapy has a lower incidence of postoperative complications. For mild internal hemorrhoids such as grade Ⅰ-Ⅱ, sclerotherapy may be more advantageous.

图1 内痔内镜套扎治疗注:1A治疗前;1B套扎后;1C术后3个月复查,内痔明显减轻
图2 内痔内镜硬化治疗注:2A治疗前;2B硬化剂注射后;2C术后6个月复查,内痔明显减轻
表1 两组内痔患者一般资料比较
表2 两组内痔患者治疗效果比较[例(%)]
表3 两组内痔患者术后近期并发症比较[例(%)]
表4 两组复发率和复发时间的比较
[1]
Gallo G, Martellucci J, Sturiale A, et al. Consensus statement of the Italian society of colorectal surgery(SICCR): management and treatment of hemorrhoidal disease[J]. Tech Coloproctol, 2020, 24(2): 145-164.
[2]
陈平, 田振国, 周璐, 等. 我国居民肛肠疾病患病状况调查[J]. 中国肛肠病杂志, 2015, 35(10): 17-20.
[3]
Lohsiriwat V, Sheikh P, Bandolon R, et al. Recurrence Rates and Pharmacological Treatment for Hemorrhoidal Disease: A Systematic Review[J]. Adv Ther, 2023, 40(1): 117-132.
[4]
Pata F, Sgro A, Ferrara F, et al. Anatomy, Physiology and Pathophysiology of Haemorrhoids[J]. Rev Recent Clin Trials, 2021, 16(1): 75-80.
[5]
Kodilinye SM, Kalloo AN. Endoscopic approaches to the management of hemorrhoids[J]. Curr Opin Gastroenterol, 2023, 39(5): 375-380.
[6]
Ma W, Guo J, Yang F, et al. Progress in Endoscopic Treatment of Hemorrhoids[J]. J Transl Int Med, 2020, 8(4): 237-244.
[7]
中华医学会消化内镜学分会内痔协作组. 中国消化内镜内痔诊疗指南及操作共识(2021)[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2021, 38(9): 676-687.
[8]
Margetis N. Pathophysiology of internal hemorrhoids[J]. Ann Gastroenterol, 2019, 32(3): 264-272.
[9]
Fernandes V, Fonseca J. Polidocanol Foam Injected at High Doses with Intravenous Needle: The(Almost) Perfect Treatment of Symptomatic Internal Hemorrhoids[J]. GE Port J Gastroenterol, 2019, 26(3): 169-175.
[10]
Xu W, Xia G, Dong L, et al. Effect of lidocaine on postoperative analgesia of endoscopic rubber band ligation combined with injection sclerotherapy for treatment of internal hemorrhoids: A retrospective study(with video)[J]. Arab J Gastroenterol, 2024, 25(2): 165-169.
[11]
肖梅, 王慧群, 贾勇, 等. 内镜下三种微创方案治疗内痔的疗效及安全性评价[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2023, 40(3): 224-228.
[12]
Qu CY, Zhang FY, Wang W, et al. Endoscopic polidocanol foam sclerobanding for the treatment of grade II-III internal hemorrhoids: A prospective, multi-center, randomized study[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2024, 30(27): 3326-3335.
[13]
沈峰, 张飞宇, 瞿春莹, 等. 内镜下泡沫硬化剂注射联合橡皮圈套扎治疗Ⅱ~Ⅲ度内痔的前瞻性临床研究(含视频)[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2021, 38(9): 696-701.
[14]
Tian L, Yu C, Qin Y, et al. Efficacy of two endoscopic rubber band ligation methods for symptomatic hemorrhoids: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2023, 37(8): 6235-6245.
[15]
Schleinstein HP, Averbach M, Averbach P, et al. ENDOSCOPIC BAND LIGATION FOR THE TREATMENT OF HEMORRHOIDAL DISEASE[J]. Arq Gastroenterol, 2019, 56(1): 22-27.
[16]
Xiong K, Zhao Q, Li W, et al. Comparison of the long-term efficacy and safety of multiple endoscopic rubber band ligations in a single session for varying grades of internal hemorrhoids[J]. Ir J Med Sci, 2023, 192(6): 2747-2753.
[17]
Wehrmann T, Riphaus A, Feinstein J, et al. Hemorrhoidal elastic band ligation with flexible videoendoscopes: a prospective, randomized comparison with the conventional technique that uses rigid proctoscopes[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2004, 60(2): 191-195.
[18]
Albuquerque A. Rubber band ligation of hemorrhoids: A guide for complications[J]. World J Gastrointest Surg, 2016, 8(9): 614-620.
[19]
肖梅, 于晓辉, 许朝, 等. 内镜下聚桂醇原液与泡沫硬化注射治疗Ⅱ度出血性内痔的疗效对比[J]. 中国医师杂志, 2023, 25(6): 819-823.
[20]
曾钰杰, 游云, 于霞, 等. 透明帽辅助内镜下硬化及套扎治疗Ⅱ-Ⅲ度内痔的疗效对比分析[J]. 现代消化及介入诊疗, 2024, 29(1): 50-55.
[21]
Amato A, Bottini C, De Nardi P, et al. Evaluation and management of perianal abscess and anal fistula: SICCR position statement[J]. Tech Coloproctol, 2020, 24(2): 127-143.
[1] 郑仁英, 罗凤梅, 李婷婷, 金勇, 万小亚. 吡咯替尼治疗HER-2阳性乳腺癌的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 167-174.
[2] 陈隆, 段晓鑫, 王思卓, 董胜利. 胃癌免疫治疗的现状[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 177-182.
[3] 李萌, 李雄雄, 徐婷, 尚进. 局部应用皮质类固醇治疗特发性肉芽肿性乳腺炎疗效与安全性的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 135-141.
[4] 宁国龙, 左伟, 侯强强. 两种不同手术方案治疗Meckel憩室肠重复畸形患儿的回顾性研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 380-383.
[5] 杨梦媛, 白启轩, 赵晓琳, 黄坤, 李珍, 曹世长, 程建平. ESD治疗腔内突出型结直肠肿瘤与大肠侧向发育型肿瘤的临床效果对比研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 405-408.
[6] 张鑫, 成建军, 李鹏杰, 郑强, 杜兰庭, 申棚宇, 郝旭丽, 刘红耀. Allium金属覆膜支架治疗输尿管狭窄的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 187-191.
[7] 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 李义亮, 艾克拜尔·艾力, 王俭, 蒋媛, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 贲门失弛缓症合并食管裂孔疝手术技巧及临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 265-268.
[8] 张莉莉, 许峰, 谢勋鹏, 张学良, 季红华, 季雯绯. 贝伐珠单抗辅助化疗非小细胞肺癌的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2025, 18(02): 284-288.
[9] 杨钰泽, 徐家豪, 杨一石, 王明达, 杨田. 肝细胞癌新辅助治疗进展[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(04): 515-521.
[10] 潘佰猛, 张挽乾, 张秋雨, 曹芮, 李鹏, 张维桢, 张灵强. 肝血管瘤临床治疗进展[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 308-313.
[11] 刘晓嵩, 袁春. 双Endobutton钢板与钩板治疗RockwoodⅢ、Ⅳ型肩锁关节脱位的疗效及并发症研究[J/OL]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2025, 13(03): 155-162.
[12] 皮秀敏, 张云鹏, 屈伟, 胡宏宇. 骨搬运联合骨水泥分段填塞与骨短缩-延长术治疗创伤后胫骨大段骨缺损的疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2025, 11(04): 237-244.
[13] 闫强, 王海虎, 倪进荣, 邓杰林, 陈华昌, 张杰. 单纯掌侧入路掌侧单钢板固定术治疗背侧移位桡骨远端不稳定骨折的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2025, 11(03): 161-169.
[14] 周振宇, 杨利君, 薛伟, 彭亮. 推拿治疗肠易激综合征的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(02): 185-190.
[15] 王春增, 拾坤, 薛有地, 伦智法, 岳璇, 马超, 刘光旺. 脊髓型颈椎病患者术前心理状态对颈前入路术后疗效的影响[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 284-291.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?