Pediatric surgery international · 2025
Bowel management outcomes in anorectal malformations: a comparative study between two referral centers in a high- and a low/middle-income country.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеМногоцентровое 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.
Del Re Giulia, Morandi Anna, Bebington Catterina, Westgarth-Taylor Chris, Leva Ernesto, Brisighelli Giulia
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare functional bowel outcomes between patients followed-up at two referral centers in a high-income country and a low/middle-income country after anorectal malformation repair (ARM).
METHODS: Cross-sectional study using Krickenbeck, Rintala and Baylor Continence Scale questionnaires. Patients below three years of age, with developmental delay, or incomplete questionnaires were excluded. Associated malformations, surgical notes, toilet training, treatment and toilet setting were considered. Results were analyzed according to age and type of ARM.
RESULTS: 68 patients from Milan and 65 from Johannesburg were included. Johannesburg population was younger (mean age 10.7 ± 6.1 years old vs 7.1 ± 4.7, p < 0.001). Perineal fistula was the most common ARM type in Milan (32/68, 47%), whereas vestibular in Johannesburg (17/65, 26%). Age at toilet training was younger in Milan (33.4 ± 13.6 months vs 43.9 ± 36.0, p = 0.02). Laxatives were more used in Milan (27/68, 40%), while enemas in Johannesburg (24/65, 37%). Mean total scores were, respectively, 4.9 ± 1.5 and 5.2 ± 1.6 with Krickenbeck (p = 0,16), 14.8 ± 4.2 and 15.5 ± 3.8 with Rintala (p = 0.28), 15.4 ± 9.3 and 12.6 ± 7.6 with BCS (p = 0.06).
CONCLUSION: Despite different bowel management programs, outcomes appear similar. We recommend the active participation of health workers in questionnaire's compilation.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study using Krickenbeck, Rintala and Baylor Continence Scale questionnaires. Patients below three years of age, with developmental delay, or incomplete questionnaires were excluded. Associated malformations, surgical notes, toilet training, treatment and toilet setting were considered. Results were analyzed according to age and type of ARM.
RESULTS: 68 patients from Milan and 65 from Johannesburg were included. Johannesburg population was younger (mean age 10.7 ± 6.1 years old vs 7.1 ± 4.7, p < 0.001). Perineal fistula was the most common ARM type in Milan (32/68, 47%), whereas vestibular in Johannesburg (17/65, 26%). Age at toilet training was younger in Milan (33.4 ± 13.6 months vs 43.9 ± 36.0, p = 0.02). Laxatives were more used in Milan (27/68, 40%), while enemas in Johannesburg (24/65, 37%). Mean total scores were, respectively, 4.9 ± 1.5 and 5.2 ± 1.6 with Krickenbeck (p = 0,16), 14.8 ± 4.2 and 15.5 ± 3.8 with Rintala (p = 0.28), 15.4 ± 9.3 and 12.6 ± 7.6 with BCS (p = 0.06).
CONCLUSION: Despite different bowel management programs, outcomes appear similar. We recommend the active participation of health workers in questionnaire's compilation.