Pediatric surgery international · 2020
Treatment of megarectum in anorectal malformation with emphasis on preventive aspects: 17 years experience.
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.
Tan Yew-Wei, Yin Kyla Ng, Chua Anne Yan Ting, Cleeve Stewart, Misra Devesh
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Megarectum in anorectal malformation (ARM) causes severe morbidity. To compare conservative management (CM) of megarectum with excision (EX), to propose a new classification and to analyse management strategies.
METHODS: Between 2000-2016, we reviewed all ARM to identify megarectum, defined by radiological recto-pelvic ratio > 0.61. A new classification was proposed: primary megarectum (PM) pre-anorectoplasty, and secondary megarectum (SM) post-anorectoplasty, with sub-types. Complications and Krickenbeck bowel function were compared between CM and EX.
RESULTS: Of 124 ARM, 22 (18%) developed megarectum; of these, 7 underwent EX. There was no difference in functional outcomes when comparing CM vs EX-voluntary bowel movement (both 86%), soiling (40% vs. 57%) and constipation (both 86%). However, EX was associated with major complications (43%) and the requirement for invasive bowel management, compared to CM (85% vs. 27%, P = 0.02). 6/7 EX needed antegrade continence enema (ACE), one of these has a permanent ileostomy. With strategic changes, incidence of megarectum reduced from 20/77 (26%) to 2/47 (4%) after 2013 (P = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: EX did not confer benefit in the functional outcome but carried a high risk of complications, often needing ACE or stoma. By adhering to strategies discussed, we reduced the incidence of megarectum and have avoided EX since 2013.
METHODS: Between 2000-2016, we reviewed all ARM to identify megarectum, defined by radiological recto-pelvic ratio > 0.61. A new classification was proposed: primary megarectum (PM) pre-anorectoplasty, and secondary megarectum (SM) post-anorectoplasty, with sub-types. Complications and Krickenbeck bowel function were compared between CM and EX.
RESULTS: Of 124 ARM, 22 (18%) developed megarectum; of these, 7 underwent EX. There was no difference in functional outcomes when comparing CM vs EX-voluntary bowel movement (both 86%), soiling (40% vs. 57%) and constipation (both 86%). However, EX was associated with major complications (43%) and the requirement for invasive bowel management, compared to CM (85% vs. 27%, P = 0.02). 6/7 EX needed antegrade continence enema (ACE), one of these has a permanent ileostomy. With strategic changes, incidence of megarectum reduced from 20/77 (26%) to 2/47 (4%) after 2013 (P = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: EX did not confer benefit in the functional outcome but carried a high risk of complications, often needing ACE or stoma. By adhering to strategies discussed, we reduced the incidence of megarectum and have avoided EX since 2013.