Pediatric surgery international · 2014
Classification and management of rectal prolapse after anorectoplasty for 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.
Brisighelli Giulia, Di Cesare Antonio, Morandi Anna, Paraboschi Irene, Canazza Lorena, Consonni Dario, Leva Ernesto
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To suggest a classification, describe the risk factors and management of rectal prolapse after anorectoplasty for anorectal malformations (ARMs).
METHODS: We classified prolapse as minimal (rectal mucosa visible with Valsalva manoeuvre), moderate (prolapse <5 mm without Valsalva), evident (>5 mm without Valsalva) and compared patients with and without prolapse within our ARM-population.
RESULTS: Among 150 patients, 40 (27 %) developed prolapse: 25 minimal, 6 moderate, 9 evident. Prolapse affected 33 % of males (9 % of perineal fistulas, 38 % of bulbar, 71 % of prostatic, 60 % of bladder neck and 13 % without fistula) and 21 % of females (9 % of perineal, 30 % of vestibular, 50 % of cloacas, and 25 % without fistula). Risk factors for prolapse were: tethered cord (40 vs 24 %), vertebral anomalies (39 vs 24 %), laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) (75 vs 25 %), and colostomy at birth (49 vs 9 %). Redo anorectoplasty was not associated with prolapse. Symptoms were present in 11 patients (28 %): in 7 % with minimal, 33 % with moderate and 77 % with evident prolapse. Nine patients (2 moderate, 7 evident) underwent surgical correction.
CONCLUSION: Severe ARMs, tethered cord, vertebral anomalies, colostomy, and LAARP predispose to rectal prolapse. Classifying prolapse allows to predict symptoms and need for surgical correction, and to compare outcomes among different centers.
METHODS: We classified prolapse as minimal (rectal mucosa visible with Valsalva manoeuvre), moderate (prolapse <5 mm without Valsalva), evident (>5 mm without Valsalva) and compared patients with and without prolapse within our ARM-population.
RESULTS: Among 150 patients, 40 (27 %) developed prolapse: 25 minimal, 6 moderate, 9 evident. Prolapse affected 33 % of males (9 % of perineal fistulas, 38 % of bulbar, 71 % of prostatic, 60 % of bladder neck and 13 % without fistula) and 21 % of females (9 % of perineal, 30 % of vestibular, 50 % of cloacas, and 25 % without fistula). Risk factors for prolapse were: tethered cord (40 vs 24 %), vertebral anomalies (39 vs 24 %), laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) (75 vs 25 %), and colostomy at birth (49 vs 9 %). Redo anorectoplasty was not associated with prolapse. Symptoms were present in 11 patients (28 %): in 7 % with minimal, 33 % with moderate and 77 % with evident prolapse. Nine patients (2 moderate, 7 evident) underwent surgical correction.
CONCLUSION: Severe ARMs, tethered cord, vertebral anomalies, colostomy, and LAARP predispose to rectal prolapse. Classifying prolapse allows to predict symptoms and need for surgical correction, and to compare outcomes among different centers.