Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2023
A comparison of perineal stapled prolapse resection and the Altemeier procedure at 2 Canadian academic hospitals.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Roy Haven M, Baig Zarrukh, Karimuddin Ahmer A, Raval Manoj J, Brown Carl J, Phang P Terry, Gill Dilip, Ginther D Nathan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The preferred perineal repair method for full-thickness rectal prolapse is the Altemeier procedure, a perineal proctosigmoidectomy with handsewn anastomosis. A recently described variant of this procedure combines the resection and anastomosis into 1 step by means of linear and transverse stapling. There are few published data comparing the characteristics and outcomes of these 2 approaches.
METHODS: This retrospective review, performed at 2 Canadian academic hospitals, compares surgical and cost outcomes between the perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSPR) and the Altemeier procedure. All patients who underwent these procedures between 2015 and 2019 were included.
RESULTS: There were 25 patients in the PSPR group and 19 in the Altemeier group. Patients in the PSPR group were significantly older than those in the Altemeier group (81 [95% confidence interval (CI) 70-92] yr v. 74 [95% CI 63-85] yr; p = 0.047), had a lower body mass index (21.4 [95% CI 17.7-25.1] v. 24.4 [95% CI 18.5-30.3]; p = 0.042) and had equivalent American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (2.84 [95% CI 2.09-3.59] v. 2.68 [95% CI 1.93-3.43]; p = 0.49). The operative time for PSPR was significantly less (30.3 [95% CI 16.3-44.3] min v. 67 [95% CI 43-91] min; p < 0.001), as were the operative costs. Recurrence (28.0% v. 36.8%; p = 0.53) and complication rates were equivalent.
CONCLUSION: PSPR is a safe, efficient and effective approach to perineal proctosigmoidectomy. It is associated with surgical outcomes comparable to those of the Altemeier procedure, but with a significant reduction in operative time and cost.
METHODS: This retrospective review, performed at 2 Canadian academic hospitals, compares surgical and cost outcomes between the perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSPR) and the Altemeier procedure. All patients who underwent these procedures between 2015 and 2019 were included.
RESULTS: There were 25 patients in the PSPR group and 19 in the Altemeier group. Patients in the PSPR group were significantly older than those in the Altemeier group (81 [95% confidence interval (CI) 70-92] yr v. 74 [95% CI 63-85] yr; p = 0.047), had a lower body mass index (21.4 [95% CI 17.7-25.1] v. 24.4 [95% CI 18.5-30.3]; p = 0.042) and had equivalent American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (2.84 [95% CI 2.09-3.59] v. 2.68 [95% CI 1.93-3.43]; p = 0.49). The operative time for PSPR was significantly less (30.3 [95% CI 16.3-44.3] min v. 67 [95% CI 43-91] min; p < 0.001), as were the operative costs. Recurrence (28.0% v. 36.8%; p = 0.53) and complication rates were equivalent.
CONCLUSION: PSPR is a safe, efficient and effective approach to perineal proctosigmoidectomy. It is associated with surgical outcomes comparable to those of the Altemeier procedure, but with a significant reduction in operative time and cost.