Journal of pediatric surgery · 2021
The cutback revisited - The posterior rectal advancement anoplasty for certain anorectal malformations with rectoperineal fistula.
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.
Halleran Devin R, Coyle David, Kulaylat Afif N, Ahmad Hira, Langer Jacob C, Gasior Alessandra C, Diefenbach Karen A, Wood Richard J, Levitt Marc A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The repair of rectoperineal fistulae can pose a significant challenge to the pediatric surgeon given the proximity of the fistula to the urethra in males and vagina in females. In these children, a simple cutback procedure may leave the neoanus in a position anterior to the center of the sphincter, which theoretically could impair future continence. We devised an adaptation of the cutback anoplasty which we call the posterior rectal advancement anoplasty (PRAA) to treat patients with a rectoperineal fistula that is both narrow in lumen and located within, but at the anterior-most limit of the sphincter complex.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patient selection, operative steps, and perioperative care of patients undergoing PRAA are detailed.
RESULTS: 10 children (6 males, 4 females) underwent PRAA. There were no vaginal wall or urethral injuries. At 6 months postoperatively, all patients were passing stool spontaneously. No patients required dilation of the anoplasty in the postoperative period and there were no anal strictures identified.
CONCLUSIONS: A modification of the cutback anoplasty can be performed in patients with a perineal fistula and the distal fistula tract within the sphincter complex. We have demonstrated that this can be performed safely and obviates the need for an anterior rectal wall dissection, thus eliminating the risk of injury to urethra or vagina.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patient selection, operative steps, and perioperative care of patients undergoing PRAA are detailed.
RESULTS: 10 children (6 males, 4 females) underwent PRAA. There were no vaginal wall or urethral injuries. At 6 months postoperatively, all patients were passing stool spontaneously. No patients required dilation of the anoplasty in the postoperative period and there were no anal strictures identified.
CONCLUSIONS: A modification of the cutback anoplasty can be performed in patients with a perineal fistula and the distal fistula tract within the sphincter complex. We have demonstrated that this can be performed safely and obviates the need for an anterior rectal wall dissection, thus eliminating the risk of injury to urethra or vagina.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.