Literature DB >> 14735346

Can the procedure for prolapsing hemorrhoids (PPH) be done twice? Results of a porcine model.

O Zmora1, P Colquhoun, S Abramson, E G Weiss, J Efron, A M Vernava, J J Nogueras, S D Wexner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The procedure for prolapsing hemorrhoids (PPH) is a new surgical method for the treatment of symptomatic hemorrhoids. In cases of recurrent prolapse, the performance of a second PPH may result in a ring of mucosa and submucosa between the two circular staple lines. In this study, we used a porcine model to assess whether PPH can be safely performed twice.
METHODS: Five adult pigs underwent two PPH procedures in one session, leaving a ring of approximately 1 cm of mucosa between the two staple lines. One month later, the pigs were examined under anesthesia. The anal canal was assessed using the following four methods: (a) clinical examination, (b) evaluation of mucosal blood perfusion at different levels of the anal canal via a laser Doppler flow detector, (c) measurement of concentrations of hydroxyproline and collagen to check for fibrosis, and (d) histopathological examination.
RESULTS: At the completion of the study period, all five pigs showed no clinical evidence of anorectal dysfunction. On examination under anesthesia 1 month after surgery, there was no evidence of anal stenosis in any of the pigs. The mean mucosal blood flow between the two staple lines did not differ significantly from the flow measured proximally and distally (394 vs 363 and 339 flow units, respectively; p = NS). The collagen levels, based on hydroxyproline concentration, were 81 mcg/mg between the staple lines, compared to 82 and 79 proximally and distally, respectively ( p = NS). There was no significant difference in degree of fibrosis, as assessed histopathologically, between specimens taken from the ring between the staple lines and specimens taken from the area external to the staple lines.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this porcine model suggest that a second synchronous PPH is feasible. A controlled experience involving human subjects is required to determine the safety and usefulness of this technique in cases of metachronous application for recurrent or residual hemorrhoids.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14735346     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-003-8141-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  21 in total

1.  Diathermy haemorrhoidectomy.

Authors:  H I Sharif; L Lee; J Alexander-Williams
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Rubber band ligation of hemorrhoids: relapse as a function of time.

Authors:  D Savioz; B Roche; T Glauser; A Dobrinov; C Ludwig; M C Marti
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Follow-up confirms sustained benefit of circumferential stapled anoplasty in the management of prolapsing haemorrhoids.

Authors:  G C Beattie; M A Loudon
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 4.  Determination of hydroxyproline.

Authors:  H Stegemann; K Stalder
Journal:  Clin Chim Acta       Date:  1967-11       Impact factor: 3.786

5.  Early and late (ten years) experience with circular stapler hemorrhoidectomy.

Authors:  L M Pernice; B Bartalucci; L Bencini; A Borri; S Catarzi; K Kröning
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.585

6.  Circumferential mucosectomy (stapled haemorrhoidectomy) versus conventional haemorrhoidectomy: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  M Rowsell; M Bello; D M Hemingway
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-03-04       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Stapling procedure for haemorrhoids versus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  B J Mehigan; J R Monson; J E Hartley
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-03-04       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Randomized clinical trial of stapled versus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy.

Authors:  R Shalaby; A Desoky
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Closed vs. open hemorrhoidectomy--is there any difference?

Authors:  G Arbman; H Krook; S Haapaniemi
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Persistent pain and faecal urgency after stapled haemorrhoidectomy.

Authors:  M J Cheetham; N J Mortensen; P O Nystrom; M A Kamm; R K Phillips
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-08-26       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  2 in total

1.  Residual skin tags following procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids: differentiation from recurrence.

Authors:  Xian Hua Gao; Chuan Gang Fu; Paul Fallah-Wandalachi Nabieu
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Surgical treatment of recurrent prolapse after stapled haemorrhoidopexy.

Authors:  F Selvaggi; G Pellino; G Sciaudone
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 3.781

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.