Pediatric surgery international · 2021
Comparing the fecal continence scores of patients with anorectal malformation with anorectal manometric findings.
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.
Mert Mehmet, Sayan Ali, Köylüoğlu Gökhan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing surgery for anorectal malformation (ARM) may have defecation-related problems throughout their lives, even if they are perfect treated surgically. Assessment methods are needed to standardize the clinical outcomes of patients with ARM. The aim of this study was to compare the scoring systems (SS) with the anorectal manometry (AM) findings.
METHODS: The data of patients operated on for ARM were examined. Holschneider's, Rintala's, Krickenbeck's and Peña's questionnaires were executed to the patients and AM was performed.
RESULTS: Our study was completed with 23 patients. There was a statistically significant relationship between the anal resting pressure and Holschneider's questionnaire (HQ). There was a statistically significant relationship between the area under the curve in the maximum voluntary squeeze pressure-time graph (AUC) and the HQ and Rintala's questionnaire (RQ). A statistically significant difference was found between HQ and RQ scores and high type and low type of ARMs.
CONCLUSION: In our study, based on AM data, it was found that the use of HQ and RQ from the four SS we compared could be more effective in patients' follow-up. It was concluded that Peña's questionnaire and Krickenbeck's questionnaire should be used to determine the bowel management program of the patients rather than patients' follow-up.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
METHODS: The data of patients operated on for ARM were examined. Holschneider's, Rintala's, Krickenbeck's and Peña's questionnaires were executed to the patients and AM was performed.
RESULTS: Our study was completed with 23 patients. There was a statistically significant relationship between the anal resting pressure and Holschneider's questionnaire (HQ). There was a statistically significant relationship between the area under the curve in the maximum voluntary squeeze pressure-time graph (AUC) and the HQ and Rintala's questionnaire (RQ). A statistically significant difference was found between HQ and RQ scores and high type and low type of ARMs.
CONCLUSION: In our study, based on AM data, it was found that the use of HQ and RQ from the four SS we compared could be more effective in patients' follow-up. It was concluded that Peña's questionnaire and Krickenbeck's questionnaire should be used to determine the bowel management program of the patients rather than patients' follow-up.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level II.