International journal of colorectal disease · 2022
Laparoscopic resection rectopexy significantly affects preexisting urinary symptoms in female patients.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Kraemer Matthias, Kraemer Silvia, Ceran Canan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: It has previously been noted that following rectopexy, some patients report changes in urinary function. So far, not much is known about the extent of such changes. This study assesses the effects of laparoscopic rectopexy on urinary symptoms.
METHODS: Prospective observational study with 100 consecutive female patients indicated for laparoscopic resection rectopexy. Stated urinary symptoms, pre- and postoperative "International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire" (ICIQ), supplemented by a "quality of life " (QoL) visual analogue scale, and residual urine measurements (RUM) were compared and correlated.
RESULTS: Postoperative QoL was significantly improved, irrespective of preexisting urinary symptoms. Twenty-four (24%) patients noticed improved urinary function. This corresponded with 42% of 45 patients who had positive preoperative ICIQ scores indicating preexisting urinary symptoms. Conversely, 14 (14%) patients noticed a postoperative increase of urinary complaints. The stated symptom change was only in part reflected by changes of the ICIQ scoring. Comparing ICIQ, 19 (19%) patients scored "better" postoperatively against 8% scoring worse; 5 of the 8 patients experienced "de novo" symptoms. The improved postoperative ICIQ scoring was highly significant. RUM did not sufficiently correlate to symptoms/ICIQ for any meaningful conclusion.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection rectopexy had predominantly beneficial and to a lesser extent detrimental effects on urinary symptoms. Effects were highly significant; they were mainly noted in patients with preexisting urinary complaints. So far, it is not possible to predict such effects on an individual basis. It appears likely that similar effects may be found for most of the alternative operative procedures for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Without more factual knowledge and awareness about the extent of potential "collateral" effects of pelvic floor repair procedures, expert guidance of patients appears limited.
METHODS: Prospective observational study with 100 consecutive female patients indicated for laparoscopic resection rectopexy. Stated urinary symptoms, pre- and postoperative "International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire" (ICIQ), supplemented by a "quality of life " (QoL) visual analogue scale, and residual urine measurements (RUM) were compared and correlated.
RESULTS: Postoperative QoL was significantly improved, irrespective of preexisting urinary symptoms. Twenty-four (24%) patients noticed improved urinary function. This corresponded with 42% of 45 patients who had positive preoperative ICIQ scores indicating preexisting urinary symptoms. Conversely, 14 (14%) patients noticed a postoperative increase of urinary complaints. The stated symptom change was only in part reflected by changes of the ICIQ scoring. Comparing ICIQ, 19 (19%) patients scored "better" postoperatively against 8% scoring worse; 5 of the 8 patients experienced "de novo" symptoms. The improved postoperative ICIQ scoring was highly significant. RUM did not sufficiently correlate to symptoms/ICIQ for any meaningful conclusion.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection rectopexy had predominantly beneficial and to a lesser extent detrimental effects on urinary symptoms. Effects were highly significant; they were mainly noted in patients with preexisting urinary complaints. So far, it is not possible to predict such effects on an individual basis. It appears likely that similar effects may be found for most of the alternative operative procedures for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Without more factual knowledge and awareness about the extent of potential "collateral" effects of pelvic floor repair procedures, expert guidance of patients appears limited.