Urology · 2016
Surgical Reconstruction of Giant Penoscrotal Lymphedema in Sub-Saharan Africa.
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.
Salako Ayo A, Olabanji Jimoh K, Oladele Ayodeji O, Alabi Gideon H, Adejare Ifedayo E, David Rotimi A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To present management challenges, surgical technique, and outcome associated with penoscrotal reconstruction in patients with giant scrotal lymphedema in sub-Saharan Africa.
METHODS: A prospective study of all patients who had penoscrotal reconstruction for giant scrotal lymphedema at our university teaching hospital between January 2003 and December 2012 was carried out. Patients' preoperative clinical evaluation findings, operative technique, and postoperative course were reviewed after obtaining ethical approval and informed consent from the patients.
RESULTS: Nineteen patients with giant scrotal lymphedema presented to us during the period of study; out of which, 11 had surgical excision and were studied. Their mean age and median duration of symptoms were 48.5 years and 11.5 years respectively. They all had surgical reconstruction using modified Charles procedure by the same combined team of urologists and plastic surgeons. Scrotal hematoma (27.3%) and superficial surgical site infection (18.2%) were complications encountered postoperatively. One patient (9.1%) had recurrence within 24 months, requiring repeat excision.
CONCLUSION: Giant scrotal lymphedema poses severe physical challenge to the sufferer. Surgery remains the only hope to reduce penoscrotal size. Combined effort of urologic and plastic surgeons is essential for reconstruction.
METHODS: A prospective study of all patients who had penoscrotal reconstruction for giant scrotal lymphedema at our university teaching hospital between January 2003 and December 2012 was carried out. Patients' preoperative clinical evaluation findings, operative technique, and postoperative course were reviewed after obtaining ethical approval and informed consent from the patients.
RESULTS: Nineteen patients with giant scrotal lymphedema presented to us during the period of study; out of which, 11 had surgical excision and were studied. Their mean age and median duration of symptoms were 48.5 years and 11.5 years respectively. They all had surgical reconstruction using modified Charles procedure by the same combined team of urologists and plastic surgeons. Scrotal hematoma (27.3%) and superficial surgical site infection (18.2%) were complications encountered postoperatively. One patient (9.1%) had recurrence within 24 months, requiring repeat excision.
CONCLUSION: Giant scrotal lymphedema poses severe physical challenge to the sufferer. Surgery remains the only hope to reduce penoscrotal size. Combined effort of urologic and plastic surgeons is essential for reconstruction.