Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde · 1995
[Disappointing results of postanal repair in the treatment of fecal incontinence].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Briel J W, Schouten W R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term results after postanal repair in patients with faecal incontinence.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
LOCATION: Rotterdam.
METHODS: Thirty-seven patients, who underwent postanal repair during the period 1984-1992, were approached by telephone to determine the current functional status.
RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 38 months (range: 4-94). One year after the operation 24 patients (65%) were continent. In 22 patients this successful outcome was observed within the first half year. In seven patients (29%) incontinence recurred. In 13 patients (35%) the functional results were disappointing from the very beginning. The final outcome, which was good in 46% of the patients, was not influenced by the underlying aetiology.
CONCLUSION: Postanal repair is not beneficial for the majority of patients with faecal incontinence. Therefore, it should be considered if other treatment modalities, such as biofeedback and the electrically stimulated M. gracilis neosphincter might not be preferable.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
LOCATION: Rotterdam.
METHODS: Thirty-seven patients, who underwent postanal repair during the period 1984-1992, were approached by telephone to determine the current functional status.
RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 38 months (range: 4-94). One year after the operation 24 patients (65%) were continent. In 22 patients this successful outcome was observed within the first half year. In seven patients (29%) incontinence recurred. In 13 patients (35%) the functional results were disappointing from the very beginning. The final outcome, which was good in 46% of the patients, was not influenced by the underlying aetiology.
CONCLUSION: Postanal repair is not beneficial for the majority of patients with faecal incontinence. Therefore, it should be considered if other treatment modalities, such as biofeedback and the electrically stimulated M. gracilis neosphincter might not be preferable.