Clinical Study Of Minimally Invasive Closed Repair Operation Combined With Traditional Chinese Medicine In Treatmenting Severe Rectocele

Objective: The severe rectocele patients that using different methods oftreatment were compared in the cure rate, symptom score, postoperativecomplications, the operation time and length of hospital stay, to observe andevaluate the clinical efficacy of the method that minimally invasive closedrepair operation combined with traditional Chinese medicine in treatment ofsevere rectocele, to play the advantages of integrative medicine.Method: The60patients eligible for severe rectocele, were randomlydivided into A, B, C three group by the method of digits table, each groupincluded20cases. After inspection, the three groups in age, the diseaseduration and the rectocele depth, had no significant difference, P>0.05.Patients in group A received the treatment of transvaginal incision and repairoperation. Patients in group B received the treatment of minimally invasiveclosed repair operation (columnar suture). Patients in group C received thesame treatment of group B, three days after the operation, patients in group Cbegan to oral traditional Chinese medicine for a month(huangqi20g，baizhu15g，dangshen15g，chenpi12g，chaihu12g，maidong12g,yuliren10g，gancao9g). The clinical efficacy of the three group was observed, mainly fromthe cure rate, symptom score (befor treatment,7days after treatment, and3months after treatment), intraoperative and postoperative bleeding,postoperative pain, postoperative tenesmus swells, postoperative infection,and the operation time, length of hospital stay.Result:1The comparison of the three groups in efficacyIn group A, the number of clinical recovery is11cases, markedlyefficiency is6cases, efficiency is2cases, invalid is1case, the total effective rate of group A is95%. In group B, the number of clinical recovery is12cases, markedly efficiency is4cases, efficiency is3cases, invalid is1case,the total effective rate of group B is95%. In group C, the number of clinicalrecovery is18cases, markedly efficiency is1case, efficiency is1case,invalid is0case, the total effective rate of group C is100%. P>0.05,Thethree groups had no significant difference2The comparison of the three groups in postoperative complicationsIntraoperative bleeding: group A includs11cases, group B includs1case,group C includs2cases. Postoperative bleeding: group A includs3cases,group B includs0case, group C includs0case. Postoperative pain: group Aincluds14cases, group B includs5cases, group C includs4cases.Postoperative tenesmus swells: group A includs15cases, group B includs8cases, group C includs2cases. Postoperative infection:0case. Group B andgroup C were cmopared with group A, P<0.05, they had significant difference.In postoperative tenesmus swells, group C was compared with group B,P<0.05, they had significant difference. In other ways, P>0.05, group B andgroup C had no significant difference.3The comparison of the three groups in operation time and the length ofhospital stayThe operation time in group A is30.90±5.55, in group B is17.15±3.83,in group C is17.85±4.64. The length of hospital stay in group A is15.05±2.68, in group B is7.65±1.66, in group C is7.20±1.79. Group B and groupC were cmopared with group A, P<0.05, they had significant difference.Group B was compared with group C, P>0.05, they had no significantdifference.4The comparison of the three groups in symptom scoreThe symptom score of the three groups: group A: befor treatment, thesymptom score is13.30±2.00;7days after treatment, the symptom score is4.60±1.79;3months after treatment, the symptom score is5.10±1.80.Group B: befor treatment, the symptom score is13.40±1.85;7days aftertreatment, the symptom score is4.05±1.28;3months after treatment, the symptom score is4.45±1.28. Group C: befor treatment, the symptom score is13.65±1.84;7days after treatment, the symptom score is4.00±1.17;3months after treatment, the symptom score is3.00±1.30.The comparison between three groups: the three groups were comparedbefor treatment, P>0.05, they had no significant difference. They werecompared7days after treatment, P>0.05, they had no significant difference.Group A was compared with group B3months after treatment, P>0.05, theyhad no significant difference. Group C was compared with group A and groupB3months after treatment, P<0.05, they had significant difference.The comparison within each group: The symptom score of the threegroups in7days after treatment and3months after treatment were comparedwith the score before treatment, P<0.05, they had significant difference.Conclusion:Through the study, we can draw the following conclusions:1Minimally invasive closed repair operation combined with traditionalChinese medicine in treatment of severe rectocele, gives full play to theadvantages of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine. Themethod has exact efficacy. It can be an effective treatment for severerectocele.2The minimally invasive closed repair operation is simple, safe andrapid recovery. The operation reduces the pain of operation and the economicburden of the patient.3After operation, the pations were treated with traditional Chinesemedicion, that can further reduce the intraoperative and postoperativecomplications, the short-term and long-term effect are better. It is worthy ofclinical application.