International journal of colorectal disease · 2023
Laparoscopic or transanal repair of rectocele? Comparison of a reduction in rectocele size.
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.
Tsunoda Akira, Takahashi Tomoko, Matsuda Satoshi, Kusanagi Hiroshi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the reduction in rectocele size after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) with that after transanal repair (TAR).
METHODS: Forty-six patients with rectocele who underwent LVR and 45 patients with rectocele who received TAR between February 2012 and December 2022 were included. This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. All patients had clinical evidence of a symptomatic rectocele. Bowel function was evaluated using the constipation scoring system (CSS) and fecal incontinence severity index (FISI). Substantial symptom improvement was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the CSS or FISI scores. Evacuation proctography was performed before surgery and 6 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Constipation was substantially improved in 40-70% of the LVR patients and 70-90% of the TAR patients over 5 years. Fecal incontinence was markedly improved in 60-90% of the LVR patients across 5 years and in 75% of the TAR patients at 1 year. Postoperative proctography showed a reduction in rectocele size in the LVR patients (30 [20-59] mm preoperatively vs. 11 [0-44] mm postoperatively, P < 0.0001) and TAR patients (33 [20-55] mm preoperatively vs. 8 [0-27] mm postoperatively, P < 0.0001). The reduction rate of rectocele size in the LVR patients was significantly lower than that in the TAR patients (63 [3-100] % vs. 79 [45-100] %, P = 0.047).
CONCLUSION: The reduction in rectocele size was lower in the patients who underwent LVR than in those who received TAR.
METHODS: Forty-six patients with rectocele who underwent LVR and 45 patients with rectocele who received TAR between February 2012 and December 2022 were included. This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. All patients had clinical evidence of a symptomatic rectocele. Bowel function was evaluated using the constipation scoring system (CSS) and fecal incontinence severity index (FISI). Substantial symptom improvement was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the CSS or FISI scores. Evacuation proctography was performed before surgery and 6 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Constipation was substantially improved in 40-70% of the LVR patients and 70-90% of the TAR patients over 5 years. Fecal incontinence was markedly improved in 60-90% of the LVR patients across 5 years and in 75% of the TAR patients at 1 year. Postoperative proctography showed a reduction in rectocele size in the LVR patients (30 [20-59] mm preoperatively vs. 11 [0-44] mm postoperatively, P < 0.0001) and TAR patients (33 [20-55] mm preoperatively vs. 8 [0-27] mm postoperatively, P < 0.0001). The reduction rate of rectocele size in the LVR patients was significantly lower than that in the TAR patients (63 [3-100] % vs. 79 [45-100] %, P = 0.047).
CONCLUSION: The reduction in rectocele size was lower in the patients who underwent LVR than in those who received TAR.