| Literature DB >> 33950943 |
Hengqing Gao1, Xiaohong Cheng2, Runping Liu1, Xiaoqiang Wang1, Wei Wang1, Furao Gong1, Renping Pan2, Jing Hu3.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: To study the clinical effects of Diding Oral Medicine as an alternative to preventative antibiotics in perioperative hemorrhoids.From August 2017 to February 2018, a total of 214 patients who were treated with external exfoliation and internal ligation of mixed hemorrhoids in our hospital were divided into the control group and experimental group by way of stratified random (107 cases in each group). Patients in the control group were given antibiotics preventatively before operation, while patients in the experimental group took Diding Oral Medicine before operation, and the white blood cell count, neutrophil count, wound recovery, pain score, anal bulge score, and pathogen culture of wound secretions were compared between the 2 groups.There was no significant difference in white blood cell count and neutrophil count between both groups before and after operation (P > .05). The wound seepage score, wound edema score, and wound area score in the experimental group were lower than those in the control group, and the wound healing in the experimental group was shorter than that in the control group (all P < .05). The pain score and anal bulge score of the experimental group were decreased significantly compared to the control group (P < .05). In addition, the detection rate of pathogenic bacteria in the experimental group was downregulated significantly compared to the control group (P < .05).The Diding Oral Medicine has prominent bacteriostatic and antibacterial effects on patients with hemorrhoids during perioperative period, and promotes wound healing, reduces pain stress, and anal bulge.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33950943 PMCID: PMC8104193 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025661
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.889
Comparison of general information of patients in experimental group and control group (n, %, ).
| Gender | Age (years) | Degree of disease | ||||
| Groups | Cases | Male | Female | Grade-III | Grade-IV | |
| Experimental group | 107 | 62 (57.94%) | 45 (42.06%) | 42.28 ± 4.53 | 48 (44.86%) | 59 (55.14%) |
| Control group | 107 | 66 (61.68%) | 41 (38.32%) | 43.02 ± 5.11 | 51 (47.66%) | 56 (52.34%) |
| – | 0.291 | 1.121 | 0.158 | |||
| – | 0.590 | 0.264 | 0.691 | |||
Comparison of white blood cell count and neutrophil count in the experimental group and control group ().
| White blood cell count (×109/L) | Neutrophil count (%) | ||||
| Groups | Cases | Before operation | After operation | Before operation | After operation |
| Experimental group | 107 | 9.91 ± 2.31 | 10.54 ± 3.40 | 71.98 ± 6.39 | 76.25 ± 6.75 |
| Control group | 107 | 9.63 ± 2.14 | 10.42 ± 3.87 | 72.44 ± 6.80 | 76.81 ± 6.46 |
| – | 0.920 | 0.241 | 0.510 | 0.620 | |
| – | 0.359 | 0.810 | 0.611 | 0.536 | |
Comparison of wound recovery in the experimental group and control group ().
| Groups | Cases | Wound seepage score (points) | Wound edema score (points) | Wound Area score (points) | Wound healing time (d) |
| Experimental group | 107 | 1.26 ± 0.21 | 1.10 ± 0.33 | 1.36 ± 0.29 | 10.12 ± 1.14 |
| Control group | 107 | 1.71 ± 0.45 | 1.58 ± 0.40 | 1.94 ± 0.41 | 14.62 ± 1.57 |
| – | 9.374 | 9.575 | 11.947 | 23.991 | |
| P | – | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Figure 1Comparison of pain score and anus swelling score in the experimental group and control group.
Figure 2Comparison of pathogen culture results of wound secretions in the experimental group and control group.