Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2022
Clinical outcomes of surgical management for recurrent rectal prolapse: a multicenter retrospective study.
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.
Hong Kwang Dae, Hyun Keehoon, Um Jun Won, Yoon Seo-Gue, Hwang Do Yeon, Shin Jaewon, Lee Dooseok, Baek Se-Jin, Kang Sanghee, Min Byung Wook, Park Kyu Joo, Ryoo Seung-Bum, Oh Heung-Kwon, Kim Min Hyun, Chung Choon Sik, Joh Yong Geul, Korean Anorectal Physiology and Pelvic Floor Disorder Study Group
Аннотация
PURPOSE: There are few reports on outcomes following surgical repair of recurrent rectal prolapse. The purpose of this study was to examine surgical outcomes for recurrent rectal prolapse.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. This study used data collected by the Korean Anorectal Physiology and Pelvic Floor Disorder Study Group.
RESULTS: A total of 166 patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were registered retrospectively between 2011 and 2016 in 8 referral hospitals. Among them, 153 patients were finally enrolled, excluding 13 patients who were not followed up postoperatively. Median follow-up duration was 40 months (range, 0.2-129.3 months). Methods of surgical repair for recurrent rectal prolapse included perineal approach (n = 96) and abdominal approach (n = 57). Postoperative complications occurred in 16 patients (10.5%). There was no significant difference in complication rate between perineal and abdominal approach groups. While patients who underwent the perineal approach were older and more fragile, patients who underwent the abdominal approach had longer operation time and admission days (P < 0.05). Overall, 29 patients (19.0%) showed re-recurrence after surgery. Among variables, none affected the re-recurrence.
CONCLUSION: For the recurrent rectal prolapse, the perineal approach is used for the old and fragile patients. The postoperative complications and re-recurrence rate between perineal and abdominal approach were not different significantly. No factor including surgical method affected re-recurrence for recurrent rectal prolapse.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. This study used data collected by the Korean Anorectal Physiology and Pelvic Floor Disorder Study Group.
RESULTS: A total of 166 patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were registered retrospectively between 2011 and 2016 in 8 referral hospitals. Among them, 153 patients were finally enrolled, excluding 13 patients who were not followed up postoperatively. Median follow-up duration was 40 months (range, 0.2-129.3 months). Methods of surgical repair for recurrent rectal prolapse included perineal approach (n = 96) and abdominal approach (n = 57). Postoperative complications occurred in 16 patients (10.5%). There was no significant difference in complication rate between perineal and abdominal approach groups. While patients who underwent the perineal approach were older and more fragile, patients who underwent the abdominal approach had longer operation time and admission days (P < 0.05). Overall, 29 patients (19.0%) showed re-recurrence after surgery. Among variables, none affected the re-recurrence.
CONCLUSION: For the recurrent rectal prolapse, the perineal approach is used for the old and fragile patients. The postoperative complications and re-recurrence rate between perineal and abdominal approach were not different significantly. No factor including surgical method affected re-recurrence for recurrent rectal prolapse.