World journal of surgery · 2012
Bridging the gap with an ileocolonic graft after extensive colorectal resections.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Dauser B, Riss S, Stopfer J, Herbst F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ileocecal interposition (ICI) for first-line reconstruction after low anterior colorectal resection was introduced by von Flüe and Harder in 1994 (Dis Colon Rectum 37:1160-1162, 1994). We report our experience using this technique to bridge colonic gaps after significant loss of bowel length.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1999 and 2009 the left-sided colon was too short for traditional isoperistaltic reconstruction in six patients treated in our hospital. Reasons for extensive bowel loss were a deficient (n = 3) or torn (n = 1) marginal artery with ischemia or repeat colorectal resections (n = 2). An ICI was done to bridge the gap and enable restoration of intestinal continuity.
RESULTS: No patient died. Whenever performing a coloanal anastomosis (4/6) a loop ileostomy was raised. One patient with colonic diversion experienced graft-related complications: ischemic colitis of the interposed colonic segment, anastomotic stenosis, and a presacral sinus were observed and managed nonoperatively. Subsequent closure of the stoma was possible in all cases. A median Vaizey incontinence score of 9 (range: 4-14) was recorded in the patient with coloanal anastomosis. The average number of bowel movements per day was 1.5 (range: 0.5-6).
CONCLUSIONS: When the descending colon does not reach the rectal stump or anal canal in reoperative cases or after vascular complication, ICI is a useful salvage procedure resulting in good bowel function.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1999 and 2009 the left-sided colon was too short for traditional isoperistaltic reconstruction in six patients treated in our hospital. Reasons for extensive bowel loss were a deficient (n = 3) or torn (n = 1) marginal artery with ischemia or repeat colorectal resections (n = 2). An ICI was done to bridge the gap and enable restoration of intestinal continuity.
RESULTS: No patient died. Whenever performing a coloanal anastomosis (4/6) a loop ileostomy was raised. One patient with colonic diversion experienced graft-related complications: ischemic colitis of the interposed colonic segment, anastomotic stenosis, and a presacral sinus were observed and managed nonoperatively. Subsequent closure of the stoma was possible in all cases. A median Vaizey incontinence score of 9 (range: 4-14) was recorded in the patient with coloanal anastomosis. The average number of bowel movements per day was 1.5 (range: 0.5-6).
CONCLUSIONS: When the descending colon does not reach the rectal stump or anal canal in reoperative cases or after vascular complication, ICI is a useful salvage procedure resulting in good bowel function.