Journal of pediatric surgery · 2018
Loop colostomies are safe in anorectal malformations.
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.
Mullassery Dhanya, Iacona Roberta, Cross Kate, Blackburn Simon, Kiely Edward, Eaton Simon, Curry Joe, De Coppi Paolo
Аннотация
AIM OF THE STUDY: Divided colostomy (DC) has been recommended in anorectal malformations (ARMs) with previously reported advantages of decreasing overflow into the distal limb and urinary tract infections (UTIs). Skin bridge loop colostomy (LC) is a technically easier alternative without an increase in these complications. We report our institutional experience of LC in ARM.
METHODS: Retrospective study (Institution-approved Clinical Audit) reviewing the clinical records of all patients with ARM undergoing stoma formation in a single UK tertiary pediatric surgical center (2000-2015). Data collected included type of ARM, associated anomalies, type and level of colostomy, time to stoma closure, complications and UTIs.
RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-two (95 female) patients underwent colostomy formation for ARM. The vast majority (171/ 94%) underwent LC; 9 (5%) had a divided colostomy (DC) and 2 (1%) had no available data. The spectrum of defects in girls included rectovestibular (62/65%), rectovaginal (4/4%) and cloaca (29/31%). In boys, 71 (82%) had a fistula to the urinary tract and 16 (18%) presented with a perineal fistula. Urological abnormalities coexisted in 87 (47.8%) patients. Thirty five (21%) patients developed UTIs. Among the 19 girls who developed UTI, 8 had rectovestibular fistula and 11 had cloaca. Of the 16 boys who developed UTI, 14 had a fistula to the urinary tract and 11 had an independent urological abnormality. The mean time from stoma formation to stoma closure was 10 (3-52) months. Complications were reported in 22 (12%) LCs. Fifteen patients (9%) developed a stoma prolapse following LC with 10 (6%) requiring surgical revision.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported series of outcomes following LC for ARM. LC is easier to perform and to close, requiring minimal surgical access, with comparable complications and outcomes to those published for DC.
TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective comparative study.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
METHODS: Retrospective study (Institution-approved Clinical Audit) reviewing the clinical records of all patients with ARM undergoing stoma formation in a single UK tertiary pediatric surgical center (2000-2015). Data collected included type of ARM, associated anomalies, type and level of colostomy, time to stoma closure, complications and UTIs.
RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-two (95 female) patients underwent colostomy formation for ARM. The vast majority (171/ 94%) underwent LC; 9 (5%) had a divided colostomy (DC) and 2 (1%) had no available data. The spectrum of defects in girls included rectovestibular (62/65%), rectovaginal (4/4%) and cloaca (29/31%). In boys, 71 (82%) had a fistula to the urinary tract and 16 (18%) presented with a perineal fistula. Urological abnormalities coexisted in 87 (47.8%) patients. Thirty five (21%) patients developed UTIs. Among the 19 girls who developed UTI, 8 had rectovestibular fistula and 11 had cloaca. Of the 16 boys who developed UTI, 14 had a fistula to the urinary tract and 11 had an independent urological abnormality. The mean time from stoma formation to stoma closure was 10 (3-52) months. Complications were reported in 22 (12%) LCs. Fifteen patients (9%) developed a stoma prolapse following LC with 10 (6%) requiring surgical revision.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported series of outcomes following LC for ARM. LC is easier to perform and to close, requiring minimal surgical access, with comparable complications and outcomes to those published for DC.
TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective comparative study.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.