Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2023
Rectal Injury during Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty: An Algorithmic Approach to Prevention and Management.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Morris Martin P, Wang Chien-Wei, Holan Cole, Lane Megan E, Sluiter Emily C, Morrison Shane D, Kuzon William M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Penile inversion vaginoplasty (PIV) is a common procedure for transfeminine patients, with the goal of creating a functional vaginal canal and clitoris and a natural-appearing vulva. Creation of the neovagina requires opening of the prerectal space, most commonly from a perineal approach, and the reported rates of rectal perforation during this dissection range from 3% to 5%.
METHODS: Adult patients who underwent PIV at the authors' institution were identified retrospectively. Demographics, operative information, and postoperative clinical outcomes were extracted from the electronic medical record.
RESULTS: Ten of 146 patients (6.8%) experienced a rectal injury. All patients underwent an immediate repair (two-layer repair in eight patients, and three-layer repair in two), with two patients subsequently requiring temporary fecal diversion and two requiring muscle flaps (1.4% each). Literature review identified 18 relevant publications, with scarce in-depth analysis of management of initial rectal injuries.
CONCLUSION: The authors' algorithmic approach to rectal injury during PIV is designed to facilitate decision-making based on preoperative preparation, consistent intraoperative monitoring, feasibility of primary repair of the rectum, and a multidisciplinary approach to longitudinal postoperative care.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
METHODS: Adult patients who underwent PIV at the authors' institution were identified retrospectively. Demographics, operative information, and postoperative clinical outcomes were extracted from the electronic medical record.
RESULTS: Ten of 146 patients (6.8%) experienced a rectal injury. All patients underwent an immediate repair (two-layer repair in eight patients, and three-layer repair in two), with two patients subsequently requiring temporary fecal diversion and two requiring muscle flaps (1.4% each). Literature review identified 18 relevant publications, with scarce in-depth analysis of management of initial rectal injuries.
CONCLUSION: The authors' algorithmic approach to rectal injury during PIV is designed to facilitate decision-making based on preoperative preparation, consistent intraoperative monitoring, feasibility of primary repair of the rectum, and a multidisciplinary approach to longitudinal postoperative care.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.