Pediatric surgery international · 2024
Classic divided sigmoidostomy vs loop sigmoidostomy in anorectal malformations: time for change?
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Ramirez-Amoros Carla, Carvalho Catarina, San Basilio María, Martinez Leopoldo, Encinas Jose Luis, Vilanova-Sanchez Alejandra
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Divided sigmoidostomy (DS) is the classic stoma for patients with anorectal malformations (ARM). Loop sigmoidostomies (LS) in ARM are associated with a higher risk of stoma prolapse and urinary tract infections (UTI). This is not clearly supported by literature. We compared our experience with both techniques.
METHODS: Retrospective study of ARM patients who underwent DS or LS between 2013 and 2023. We analysed demographics, associated malformations, intraoperative variables, oral intake and stoma functioning times, hospital stay, complications, prolapses, and UTI.
RESULTS: Of 40 patients, 29 underwent open DS and 11 laparoscopic LS. Demographics, malformation type, associated anomalies, surgical time, intraoperative and anaesthetic complications were comparable. Postoperative complications were higher in DS than LS [14(48.3%) vs 1(9.1%), (p = 0.02)], mostly due to wound complications [12(41.3%) vs 0(0%), (p = 0.01)]; with 3 dehiscenses and 3 strictures reintervened. The hours to oral intake and stoma functioning were higher for DS [48(39-90) and 48(24-48) vs 24(24-48) and 24(24-24), (p < 0.05)], with more days of hospital stay [36(19-60) vs 8(5-10), (p = 0.001)]. Prolapses [1(3.4%) vs 1(9.1%)] and UTIs [3(10.3%) vs 1(9.1%) (p > 0.05)] were comparable.
CONCLUSION: LS in ARM patients have no higher risk of prolapse or UTI than DS. DS had more complications, mostly wound infections, strictures and dehiscenses.
METHODS: Retrospective study of ARM patients who underwent DS or LS between 2013 and 2023. We analysed demographics, associated malformations, intraoperative variables, oral intake and stoma functioning times, hospital stay, complications, prolapses, and UTI.
RESULTS: Of 40 patients, 29 underwent open DS and 11 laparoscopic LS. Demographics, malformation type, associated anomalies, surgical time, intraoperative and anaesthetic complications were comparable. Postoperative complications were higher in DS than LS [14(48.3%) vs 1(9.1%), (p = 0.02)], mostly due to wound complications [12(41.3%) vs 0(0%), (p = 0.01)]; with 3 dehiscenses and 3 strictures reintervened. The hours to oral intake and stoma functioning were higher for DS [48(39-90) and 48(24-48) vs 24(24-48) and 24(24-24), (p < 0.05)], with more days of hospital stay [36(19-60) vs 8(5-10), (p = 0.001)]. Prolapses [1(3.4%) vs 1(9.1%)] and UTIs [3(10.3%) vs 1(9.1%) (p > 0.05)] were comparable.
CONCLUSION: LS in ARM patients have no higher risk of prolapse or UTI than DS. DS had more complications, mostly wound infections, strictures and dehiscenses.