Polski przeglad chirurgiczny · 2012
Skin bridge versus rod colostomy in children - comparison between complications.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Askarpour Shahnam, Peyvasteh Mehran, Changai Bahram, Javaherizadeh Hazhir
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Due to economic problems, sigmoid loop colostomy using glass rod may cause problems for our patients for finding glass rod and several visits. The aim of the study was to compare rod versus skin bridge colostomy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, 42 cases who are candidate for colostomy were included. Cases were randomly placed in skin bridge and rod colostomy group. Independent sample t-test and Chi-square were used for comparison. SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for analysis.
RESULTS: Of 42 cases, 20 were male and 22 were female. Hirschsprung's disease was the indication of colostomy in 33 cases. In nine cases, imperforate anus was the indication of colostomy. Mean time of surgery was 79.4 and 82.5 minute for the rod and skin bridge group respectively (P>0.05). Retraction was seen in 2 case of rod group, and no case of skin bridge group. Prolapse was seen in 2 (9.5%) case of rod group and 1(4.7%) case in skin bridge. There were no reports of necrosis, stenosis, and hernia in both groups.
CONCLUSION: In the skin bridge group the rates of complications were lower but the groups are too small for statistical analysis. Colostomy with a skin bridge method may decrease number of revision and expenses and may be appropriate option. Sigmoid loop colostomy using skin bridge flap may be appropriate choice in developing country. Another study with more samples is recommended to better comparison of Skin Bridge versus rod colostomy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, 42 cases who are candidate for colostomy were included. Cases were randomly placed in skin bridge and rod colostomy group. Independent sample t-test and Chi-square were used for comparison. SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for analysis.
RESULTS: Of 42 cases, 20 were male and 22 were female. Hirschsprung's disease was the indication of colostomy in 33 cases. In nine cases, imperforate anus was the indication of colostomy. Mean time of surgery was 79.4 and 82.5 minute for the rod and skin bridge group respectively (P>0.05). Retraction was seen in 2 case of rod group, and no case of skin bridge group. Prolapse was seen in 2 (9.5%) case of rod group and 1(4.7%) case in skin bridge. There were no reports of necrosis, stenosis, and hernia in both groups.
CONCLUSION: In the skin bridge group the rates of complications were lower but the groups are too small for statistical analysis. Colostomy with a skin bridge method may decrease number of revision and expenses and may be appropriate option. Sigmoid loop colostomy using skin bridge flap may be appropriate choice in developing country. Another study with more samples is recommended to better comparison of Skin Bridge versus rod colostomy.