Techniques in coloproctology · 2006
Laparoscopic rectovaginopexy for rectal prolapse.
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.
Verdaasdonk E G G, Bueno de Mesquita J M, Stassen L P S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Open rectovaginopexy is an effective procedure for the treatment of both rectal prolapse and anterior rectocele. This study investigates our results of laparoscopic rectovaginopexy (LRVP).
METHODS: A consecutive series of 14 patients (median age, 73 years; range 24-92) with rectal prolapse was planned for LRVP. Pre-, per- and postoperative parameters were recorded. Followup was performed at the outpatients' clinic.
RESULTS: The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (range, 3-14). There was one fatal cerebrovascular accident 14 days postoperatively; this patient was excluded from further analysis. Median follow-up was 7 months (range, 0.75-38). During follow-up, 11 of 13 patients (85%) experienced resolution or major improvement of their symptoms. Anal incontinence was diminished in 9 of 13 cases (69%). Constipation improved in 2 of 3 patients (66%). These three patients experienced a combination of both anal incontinence and costipation, preoperatively. Recurrence occurred in 2 patients (15%). Two others had a minor residual mucosal prolapse. No patients reported symptoms suggestive of operation-induced constipation or dyspareunia.
CONCLUSIONS: LRVP is feasible, and seems to be an effective procedure for rectal prolapse. No operation-induced constipation was observed in this series. Taking into account the age and co-morbidities of these patients, morbidity and mortality may be considered acceptable.
METHODS: A consecutive series of 14 patients (median age, 73 years; range 24-92) with rectal prolapse was planned for LRVP. Pre-, per- and postoperative parameters were recorded. Followup was performed at the outpatients' clinic.
RESULTS: The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (range, 3-14). There was one fatal cerebrovascular accident 14 days postoperatively; this patient was excluded from further analysis. Median follow-up was 7 months (range, 0.75-38). During follow-up, 11 of 13 patients (85%) experienced resolution or major improvement of their symptoms. Anal incontinence was diminished in 9 of 13 cases (69%). Constipation improved in 2 of 3 patients (66%). These three patients experienced a combination of both anal incontinence and costipation, preoperatively. Recurrence occurred in 2 patients (15%). Two others had a minor residual mucosal prolapse. No patients reported symptoms suggestive of operation-induced constipation or dyspareunia.
CONCLUSIONS: LRVP is feasible, and seems to be an effective procedure for rectal prolapse. No operation-induced constipation was observed in this series. Taking into account the age and co-morbidities of these patients, morbidity and mortality may be considered acceptable.