BJU international · 2005
A posterior sagittal approach for revision vaginoplasty.
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.
Taghizadeh Arash K, Wilcox Duncan T
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review our experience with revision vaginoplasty without using bowel, by the posterior sagittal approach.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The notes of eight patients (median age 12.3 years, range 9.0-15.6) were retrospectively reviewed; all had had revision vaginoplasty using a posterior sagittal approach. Their original diagnosis was cloacal anomaly in three, urogenital sinus in two, cloacal exstrophy in two, and congenital adrenal hyperplasia in one patient.
RESULTS: Indications for re-operation included: haematocolpos in four patients, absent vaginal opening in two, hydrocolpos in one, and vesico-vaginal fistula in one. The vagina was reconstructed by total urogenital mobilization in seven patients and in one by anastomosing anterior and posterior aspects of a duplicated vagina. The vagina was mobilized by up to 6 cm in this manner. Bowel was not required for any of the vaginoplasties. The median (range) inpatient stay was 6 (4-17) days after surgery and the median follow-up was 35.3 (4.5-50) months. One patient developed a vesico-vaginal fistula and vaginal stenosis, and had further surgery. Two patients required subsequent use of vaginal dilators. The remainder have had a satisfactory outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: For revisional vaginal surgery the posterior approach provides excellent exposure, and can be useful in dealing with a variety of pathologies. Combined with total urogenital mobilization, vaginoplasty can be successful despite long common channels. However, there were still several complications.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The notes of eight patients (median age 12.3 years, range 9.0-15.6) were retrospectively reviewed; all had had revision vaginoplasty using a posterior sagittal approach. Their original diagnosis was cloacal anomaly in three, urogenital sinus in two, cloacal exstrophy in two, and congenital adrenal hyperplasia in one patient.
RESULTS: Indications for re-operation included: haematocolpos in four patients, absent vaginal opening in two, hydrocolpos in one, and vesico-vaginal fistula in one. The vagina was reconstructed by total urogenital mobilization in seven patients and in one by anastomosing anterior and posterior aspects of a duplicated vagina. The vagina was mobilized by up to 6 cm in this manner. Bowel was not required for any of the vaginoplasties. The median (range) inpatient stay was 6 (4-17) days after surgery and the median follow-up was 35.3 (4.5-50) months. One patient developed a vesico-vaginal fistula and vaginal stenosis, and had further surgery. Two patients required subsequent use of vaginal dilators. The remainder have had a satisfactory outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: For revisional vaginal surgery the posterior approach provides excellent exposure, and can be useful in dealing with a variety of pathologies. Combined with total urogenital mobilization, vaginoplasty can be successful despite long common channels. However, there were still several complications.