
Chinese General Practice ›› 2023, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (08): 955-962.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0545
• Original Research • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:2022-07-13
Revised:2022-10-19
Published:2023-03-15
Online:2022-10-31
Contact:
GAO Jihua
通讯作者:
高记华
作者简介:基金资助:
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0545
| 组别 | 例数 | 性别〔n(%)〕 | 年龄〔M(P25,P75),岁〕 | 混合痔病程〔n(%)〕 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 男 | 女 | <6个月 | 6~12个月 | >12个月 | ||||
| 对照组 | 136 | 60(44.13) | 76(55.87) | 39(28,48) | 29(21.32) | 48(35.30) | 59(43.38) | |
| 试验组 | 140 | 75(53.57) | 65(46.43) | 38(30,47) | 32(22.86) | 40(28.57) | 68(48.57) | |
| 检验统计量值 | 2.467a | 0.141b | 1.455a | |||||
| P值 | 0.116 | 0.129 | 0.483 | |||||
| 组别 | 混合痔分期〔n(%)〕 | VAS评分〔M(P25,P75),分〕 | 临床症状评分〔M(P25,P75),分〕 | 肛管静息压( | HF-QoL评分( | 既往史〔n(%)〕 | ||
| Ⅰ度 | Ⅱ度 | 有 | 无 | |||||
| 对照组 | 28(20.59) | 108(79.41) | 4(3,5) | 16(10,22) | 87.28±3.62 | 48.06±8.23 | 17(12.50) | 119(87.50) |
| 试验组 | 35(25.00) | 105(75.00) | 4(3,5) | 14(10,20) | 86.73±3.18 | 47.22±8.01 | 19(13.57) | 121(86.43) |
| 检验统计量值 | 0.762a | -1.015b | -1.328b | 1.342c | 0.859c | 0.070a | ||
| P值 | 0.383 | 0.211 | 0.184 | 0.181 | 0.391 | 0.792 | ||
Table 1 Comparison of baseline clinical data of two groups
| 组别 | 例数 | 性别〔n(%)〕 | 年龄〔M(P25,P75),岁〕 | 混合痔病程〔n(%)〕 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 男 | 女 | <6个月 | 6~12个月 | >12个月 | ||||
| 对照组 | 136 | 60(44.13) | 76(55.87) | 39(28,48) | 29(21.32) | 48(35.30) | 59(43.38) | |
| 试验组 | 140 | 75(53.57) | 65(46.43) | 38(30,47) | 32(22.86) | 40(28.57) | 68(48.57) | |
| 检验统计量值 | 2.467a | 0.141b | 1.455a | |||||
| P值 | 0.116 | 0.129 | 0.483 | |||||
| 组别 | 混合痔分期〔n(%)〕 | VAS评分〔M(P25,P75),分〕 | 临床症状评分〔M(P25,P75),分〕 | 肛管静息压( | HF-QoL评分( | 既往史〔n(%)〕 | ||
| Ⅰ度 | Ⅱ度 | 有 | 无 | |||||
| 对照组 | 28(20.59) | 108(79.41) | 4(3,5) | 16(10,22) | 87.28±3.62 | 48.06±8.23 | 17(12.50) | 119(87.50) |
| 试验组 | 35(25.00) | 105(75.00) | 4(3,5) | 14(10,20) | 86.73±3.18 | 47.22±8.01 | 19(13.57) | 121(86.43) |
| 检验统计量值 | 0.762a | -1.015b | -1.328b | 1.342c | 0.859c | 0.070a | ||
| P值 | 0.383 | 0.211 | 0.184 | 0.181 | 0.391 | 0.792 | ||
| 组别 | 例数 | VAS评分 | 临床症状评分 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D4 | D7 | D10 | Wald χ2时间值 | P值 | D4 | D7 | D10 | Wald χ2时间值 | P值 | ||||||
| 对照组 | 136 | 3(3,5) | 3(2,4) | 2(2,3) | 173.454 | <0.001 | 14(8,16) | 8(6,10) | 4(2,4) | 1123.995 | <0.001 | ||||
| 试验组 | 140 | 3(2,5) | 3(2,4) | 2(1,2) | 12(8,16) | 8(6,10) | 2(2,4) | ||||||||
| Z值 | -1.445 | -1.087 | -4.681 | -0.671 | -0.796 | -3.784 | |||||||||
| P值 | 0.148 | 0.277 | <0.001 | 0.503 | 0.426 | <0.001 | |||||||||
| 组别 | 便血评分 | 脱出评分 | 坠胀评分 | ||||||||||||
| D4 | D7 | D10 | Waldχ2时间值 | P值 | D4 | D7 | D10 | Waldχ2时间值 | P值 | D4 | D7 | D10 | Waldχ2时间值 | P值 | |
| 对照组 | 4(2,4) | 2(2,2) | 0(0,2) | 457.793 | <0.001 | 2(0,2) | 0(0,2) | 0(0,0) | 181.055 | <0.001 | 2(2,4) | 2(0,2) | 0(0,2) | 433.018 | <0.001 |
| 试验组 | 2(2,4) | 2(2,2) | 0(0,2) | 2(0,2) | 0(0,2) | 0(0,0) | 2(2,4) | 2(0.5,2) | 0(0,2) | ||||||
| Z值 | -0.248 | -0.426 | -1.994 | -0.688 | -0.567 | -0.872 | -1.076 | -0.360 | -0.817 | ||||||
| P值 | 0.804 | 0.670 | 0.046 | 0.491 | 0.571 | 0.383 | 0.282 | 0.719 | 0.414 | ||||||
| 组别 | 痔黏膜评分 | 痔核大小评分 | |||||||||||||
| D4 | D7 | D10 | Wald χ2时间值 | P值 | D4 | D7 | D10 | Wald χ2时间值 | P值 | ||||||
| 对照组 | 2(2,4) | 2(0,2) | 0(0,2) | 442.806 | <0.001 | 2(2,4) | 2(2,2) | 0(0,2) | 487.879 | <0.001 | |||||
| 试验组 | 2(2,4) | 2(2,2) | 0(0,0) | 2(2,4) | 2(2,2) | 0(0,2) | |||||||||
| Z值 | -0.677 | -0.032 | -1.125 | -0.856 | -0.653 | -3.411 | |||||||||
| P值 | 0.499 | 0.975 | 0.261 | 0.392 | 0.513 | <0.001 | |||||||||
Table 2 Comparison of VAS and clinical symptoms during the follow-up period between two groups
| 组别 | 例数 | VAS评分 | 临床症状评分 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D4 | D7 | D10 | Wald χ2时间值 | P值 | D4 | D7 | D10 | Wald χ2时间值 | P值 | ||||||
| 对照组 | 136 | 3(3,5) | 3(2,4) | 2(2,3) | 173.454 | <0.001 | 14(8,16) | 8(6,10) | 4(2,4) | 1123.995 | <0.001 | ||||
| 试验组 | 140 | 3(2,5) | 3(2,4) | 2(1,2) | 12(8,16) | 8(6,10) | 2(2,4) | ||||||||
| Z值 | -1.445 | -1.087 | -4.681 | -0.671 | -0.796 | -3.784 | |||||||||
| P值 | 0.148 | 0.277 | <0.001 | 0.503 | 0.426 | <0.001 | |||||||||
| 组别 | 便血评分 | 脱出评分 | 坠胀评分 | ||||||||||||
| D4 | D7 | D10 | Waldχ2时间值 | P值 | D4 | D7 | D10 | Waldχ2时间值 | P值 | D4 | D7 | D10 | Waldχ2时间值 | P值 | |
| 对照组 | 4(2,4) | 2(2,2) | 0(0,2) | 457.793 | <0.001 | 2(0,2) | 0(0,2) | 0(0,0) | 181.055 | <0.001 | 2(2,4) | 2(0,2) | 0(0,2) | 433.018 | <0.001 |
| 试验组 | 2(2,4) | 2(2,2) | 0(0,2) | 2(0,2) | 0(0,2) | 0(0,0) | 2(2,4) | 2(0.5,2) | 0(0,2) | ||||||
| Z值 | -0.248 | -0.426 | -1.994 | -0.688 | -0.567 | -0.872 | -1.076 | -0.360 | -0.817 | ||||||
| P值 | 0.804 | 0.670 | 0.046 | 0.491 | 0.571 | 0.383 | 0.282 | 0.719 | 0.414 | ||||||
| 组别 | 痔黏膜评分 | 痔核大小评分 | |||||||||||||
| D4 | D7 | D10 | Wald χ2时间值 | P值 | D4 | D7 | D10 | Wald χ2时间值 | P值 | ||||||
| 对照组 | 2(2,4) | 2(0,2) | 0(0,2) | 442.806 | <0.001 | 2(2,4) | 2(2,2) | 0(0,2) | 487.879 | <0.001 | |||||
| 试验组 | 2(2,4) | 2(2,2) | 0(0,0) | 2(2,4) | 2(2,2) | 0(0,2) | |||||||||
| Z值 | -0.677 | -0.032 | -1.125 | -0.856 | -0.653 | -3.411 | |||||||||
| P值 | 0.499 | 0.975 | 0.261 | 0.392 | 0.513 | <0.001 | |||||||||
| 组别 | 例数 | VAS评分〔M(P25,P75),分〕 | 临床症状评分〔M(P25,P75),分〕 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | Z配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | Z配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 136 | 4(3,5) | 2(2,3) | -7.017 | <0.001 | 16(10,22) | 4(2,4) | -10.057 | <0.001 |
| 试验组 | 140 | 4(3,5) | 2(1,2) | -7.469 | <0.001 | 14(10,20) | 2(2,4) | -10.280 | <0.001 |
| Z(t)值 | -1.015 | -4.681 | -1.328 | -3.784 | |||||
| P值 | 0.211 | <0.001 | 0.184 | <0.001 | |||||
| 组别 | 肛管静息压( | HF-QoL评分( | |||||||
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 87.28±3.62 | 84.28±3.61 | 6.843 | <0.001 | 48.06±8.23 | 38.57±4.94 | 11.653 | <0.001 | |
| 试验组 | 86.73±3.18 | 83.23±3.18 | 9.209 | <0.001 | 47.22±8.01 | 34.87±4.03 | 16.297 | <0.001 | |
| Z(t)值 | 1.342a | 2.566a | 0.859a | 6.827a | |||||
| P值 | 0.181 | 0.011 | 0.391 | <0.001 | |||||
Table 3 Comparison of efficacy indicators in two groups of before and after treatment
| 组别 | 例数 | VAS评分〔M(P25,P75),分〕 | 临床症状评分〔M(P25,P75),分〕 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | Z配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | Z配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 136 | 4(3,5) | 2(2,3) | -7.017 | <0.001 | 16(10,22) | 4(2,4) | -10.057 | <0.001 |
| 试验组 | 140 | 4(3,5) | 2(1,2) | -7.469 | <0.001 | 14(10,20) | 2(2,4) | -10.280 | <0.001 |
| Z(t)值 | -1.015 | -4.681 | -1.328 | -3.784 | |||||
| P值 | 0.211 | <0.001 | 0.184 | <0.001 | |||||
| 组别 | 肛管静息压( | HF-QoL评分( | |||||||
| 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | 治疗前 | 治疗后 | t配对值 | P值 | ||
| 对照组 | 87.28±3.62 | 84.28±3.61 | 6.843 | <0.001 | 48.06±8.23 | 38.57±4.94 | 11.653 | <0.001 | |
| 试验组 | 86.73±3.18 | 83.23±3.18 | 9.209 | <0.001 | 47.22±8.01 | 34.87±4.03 | 16.297 | <0.001 | |
| Z(t)值 | 1.342a | 2.566a | 0.859a | 6.827a | |||||
| P值 | 0.181 | 0.011 | 0.391 | <0.001 | |||||
| 组别 | 例数 | 痊愈 | 显效 | 有效 | 无效 | 总有效 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 | 136 | 95(69.85) | 19(13.98) | 10(7.35) | 12(8.82) | 124(91.18) |
| 试验组 | 140 | 118(84.28)a | 12(8.57) | 5(3.57) | 5(3.58) | 135(96.43) |
Table 4 Comparison of the overall curative effect between two groups
| 组别 | 例数 | 痊愈 | 显效 | 有效 | 无效 | 总有效 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 对照组 | 136 | 95(69.85) | 19(13.98) | 10(7.35) | 12(8.82) | 124(91.18) |
| 试验组 | 140 | 118(84.28)a | 12(8.57) | 5(3.57) | 5(3.58) | 135(96.43) |
| [1] |
田振国,陈平. 中国成人常见肛肠疾病流行病学调查[M]. 武汉:武汉大学出版社,2015.
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
中国中西医结合学会大肠肛门病专业委员会.中国痔病诊疗指南(2020)[J].结直肠肛门外科,2020,26(5):519-533.
|
| [6] |
中华医学会外科学分会结直肠肛门外科学组,中华中医药学会肛肠病专业委员会,中国中西医结合学会结直肠肛门病专业委员会. 痔临床诊治指南(2006版)[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志,2006,9(5):461-463. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2006.05.039.
|
| [7] |
中华中医药学会. 中医肛肠科常见病诊疗指南[M]. 北京:中国中医药出版社,2012.
|
| [8] |
田茂生,戚文月,刘朝阳,等. 痔病相似症状定量评估模型的实验研究[J]. 中华中医药杂志,2020,35(10):5237-5240.
|
| [9] |
孙松朋,龙俊红,张书信. 痔病患者显微镜下痔组织出血情况及其影响因素研究[J]. 中国全科医学,2020,23(33):4190-4195. DOI:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2020.00.434.
|
| [10] |
周世勇,艾飞,刘德武,等. TST术联合聚桂醇点状注射治疗混合痔合并直肠黏膜内脱垂临床观察[J]. 中国全科医学,2021,24(S2):76-79.
|
| [11] | |
| [12] |
安文政,刘青,付文亮,等. 贻贝黏附蛋白研究进展[J]. 军事医学,2021,45(10):798-801.
|
| [13] |
高记华,田茂生,戚文月,等. 贻贝粘蛋白肛肠敷料治疗肛肠皮肤黏膜损伤的专家共识[J]. 中国肛肠病杂志,2021,41(8):77-80.
|
| [14] |
程跃,周晋,侯艳梅,等. 基于倾向性匹配法评价苦参汤熏洗结合八髎穴盒灸治疗高位复杂性肛瘘患者术后并发症的临床疗效研究[J]. 中国全科医学,2017,20(3):342-346. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007-9572.2017.03.015.
|
| [15] |
高记华,陈雪清,齐立卿,等. 肛肠病术后运用痛痒消洗剂的临床研究[J]. 中华中医药杂志,2005,20(8):508-509. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1673-1727.2005.08.024.
|
| [16] |
王娜,朱忠宁,王非,等. 痛痒消洗剂的急性毒性与刺激性试验研究[J]. 河北医科大学学报,2007,28(1):38-39. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007-3205.2007.01.013.
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
陈红风. 中医外科学[M]. 4版. 北京:中国中医药出版社,2016.
|
| [19] |
郑筱萸. 中药新药临床研究指导原则:试行[M]. 北京:中国医药科技出版社,2002.
|
| [20] |
曹卉娟,邢建民,刘建平. 视觉模拟评分法在症状类结局评价测量中的应用[J]. 中医杂志,2009,50(7):600-602. DOI:10.13288/j.11-2166/r.2009.07.001.
|
| [21] |
严广斌. 视觉模拟评分法[J]. 中华关节外科杂志:电子版,2014,8(2):273.
|
| [22] |
中华中医药学会. 中医肛肠科临床诊疗指南[M]. 北京:中国中医药出版社,2020.
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] | |
| [29] |
王健,李丁. 痔的病理生理学研究进展[J]. 中国病理生理杂志,2010,26(1):193-196.
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
张东铭. 肛垫黏膜的生物学特性及其临床意义[C].第十一次全国中西医结合大肠肛门病学术会议论文汇编,2006:40-44.
|
| [32] | |
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] | |
| [37] |
马继兴. 马王堆古医书考释[M]. 长沙:湖南科学技术出版社,1992.
|
| [38] |
柏连松,张雅明. 柏氏肛肠病学[M]. 上海:上海科学技术出版社,2016.
|
| [39] | |
| [40] |
张力,梁学敏,范小华,等. 中药熏洗坐浴治疗混合痔术后疼痛的Meta分析[J]. 中国医药导报,2018,15(21):129-133.
|
| [1] | SUN Songpeng, XU Fangfang, LONG Junhong, WANG Zhanjun, CAO Qiaorong, WAN Weiping, LI Tianyu, LIN Mei, TIAN Ying, SHI Bin, WU Yao, WANG Jianguo, LI Xinjian, HUO Xingxiao, LIANG Longyu, CHU Hongchuan, ZHOU Yangyang, ZHANG Zhiyun, ZHANG Shuxin, JIA Shan. Construction and Clinical Value of the Hemorrhoids Severity and Surgical Risk Prediction Score [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(20): 2879-2886. |
| [2] | ZHANG Ke, ZENG Xianchang, ZOLZAYA Enkhzaya, ZHU Yelin, HUANG Yiwen, LIU Zhenxiu, TAO Feng. Effect of Xiere Xingpi Yin on Eating Behaviors and Weight-related Outcomes in Patients with Obesity: a Randomized Controlled Trial [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(20): 2759-2765. |
| [3] | WU Ruining, ZHOU Ming, ZHANG Gongzi, LI Jun, XIE Suhang, LIU Yangxiaoxue, ZHANG Jiali, LIU Maomao, HUANG Liping. Study on Fixed and Mobile Exoskeleton Robots in Improving Lower Limb Function and Quality of Life in Stroke Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(17): 2326-2333. |
| [4] | JI Ying, GUO Chuan, ZHU Shizhe, JI Panpan, WANG Tong, KAN Chaojie, WANG Qinglei. Effects of Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation of the Cerebellum on Different Balance Abilities in Patients with Supratentorial Stroke: a Randomized Controlled Trial [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(15): 2022-2028. |
| [5] | ZHOU Hui, TANG Yubo, CHEN Jie, TANG Kejing, YUAN Gang, YAO Mi. Interpretation for the Reporting of Surrogate Endpoints in Randomized Controlled Trial Protocols: Based on SPIRIT and CONSORT Extension Checklist [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(15): 2107-2112. |
| [6] | JIANG Nan, YANG Wei. A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effects of Press Needle Therapy on Improving Bowel Movements in Patients with Chronic Constipation and Mixed Hemorrhoids Following Hemorrhoidectomy Based on Regulating Intestinal Nerve Function [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(14): 1849-1857. |
| [7] | CHU Hongchuan, SUN Songpeng, LONG Junhong, HUO Xingxiao, LIANG Longyu, ZHOU Yangyang, LIU Yan, LIU Jiaxin. Evaluating the Effectiveness of GSQ Score for the Severity of Hemorrhoids and the Value of Guiding Treatment [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(11): 1405-1410. |
| [8] | PENG Jun, DING Jinglin, HAO Chenye, WU Cheng, ZHU Ronghui, GU Chunguang, GUAN Wenqi, WAN hui. A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing the Effectiveness of Online and Offline Training on Improving Digital Health Literacy among the Elderly [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(10): 1348-1353. |
| [9] | TIAN Rong, LI Kaiyang, YANG Mei, HUANG Jing, ZHANG Fei, ZHAO Qi. Current Situation Analysis of Outcome Indexes of Randomized Controlled Trial on Treatment of Peptic Ulcer with Chinese Medicine [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(05): 656-667. |
| [10] | HUO Xingxiao, SUN Songpeng, LONG Junhong, LIANG Longyu, CHU Hongchuan, ZHOU Yangyang, LIU Yan, LIU Jiaxin. Investigation on the Current Application of Injectable Treatment for Hemorrhoids in China [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(35): 4435-4441. |
| [11] | LIU Yongcheng, LIU Siyu, LIANG Xiaoyu, HAO Xiaopeng, WEI Yue, DONG Guoju. Analysis of Echocardiographic Outcome Measures in Randomized Controlled Trials in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(33): 4140-4147. |
| [12] | ZHI Congcong, CHENG Yicheng, HUANG Zichen, WANG Xiaolong, LI Xue, ZHENG Lihua. Collection and Determination of Clinical Questions and Outcome Indicators Based on the Guidelines for Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Diagnosis and Treatment of Hemorrhoids (2025 Edition) [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(32): 4089-4094. |
| [13] | TU Kunkun, ZHAO Jie, SHI Xiuyuan, XIE Pei, HAN Xinxin. The Impact of Generalist-Specialist Collaborative Care Models on Health Outcomes in Hypertension and Diabetes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in China [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(31): 3912-3923. |
| [14] | HAN Xue, LIU Huan, LOU Xiaole, SONG Jianing, ZHANG Ziang, GENG Zongxiao, WANG Shan, ZHANG Yongqing, XU Lei. Intermittent θ Burst Stimulation Combined with Chin Tuck Against Resistance Training for Dysphagia in Stroke Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(29): 3625-3630. |
| [15] | XIAO Caihong, CUI Jin, QUAN Fei, YAN Mingxi, LU Chunxia, CHEN Yinglong. Clinical Efficacy Study on the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction with Miao Medicine Bamboo-based Medicinal Moxibustion Therapy: a Randomized Controlled Study [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(26): 3300-3306. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||