Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019
Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse: A 10-Year Experience at a Single Institution.
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.
Nacion Aeris Jane D, Park Youn Young, Kim Ho Seung, Yang Seung Yoon, Kim Nam Kyu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Despite the plethora of surgical options, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment for rectal prolapse. This study is aimed at evaluating our experience with its treatment and outcomes.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed rectal prolapse patients' characteristics, clinical presentation, surgical procedure, average length of hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and recurrence over a 10 year period at our institution.
RESULTS: A total of 46 patients underwent rectal prolapse repair at our institution over a 10 year period. Of the 39 patients with primary rectal prolapse, 18 patients had an abdominal procedure, while 21 patients underwent a perineal approach. Operative duration was significantly longer in abdominal procedures, of which 16 cases were performed laparoscopically. Length of hospital stay and recurrence were not statistically significant between the 2 groups. In patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, more than 80% of the initial surgeries were done using the perineal approach. An abdominal approach was utilized in the management of 75% of recurrences.
CONCLUSION: An abdominal repair may be preferable in the treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse. Minimally invasive techniques may be feasible and can provide a safe alternative to perineal procedures in elderly patients.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed rectal prolapse patients' characteristics, clinical presentation, surgical procedure, average length of hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and recurrence over a 10 year period at our institution.
RESULTS: A total of 46 patients underwent rectal prolapse repair at our institution over a 10 year period. Of the 39 patients with primary rectal prolapse, 18 patients had an abdominal procedure, while 21 patients underwent a perineal approach. Operative duration was significantly longer in abdominal procedures, of which 16 cases were performed laparoscopically. Length of hospital stay and recurrence were not statistically significant between the 2 groups. In patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, more than 80% of the initial surgeries were done using the perineal approach. An abdominal approach was utilized in the management of 75% of recurrences.
CONCLUSION: An abdominal repair may be preferable in the treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse. Minimally invasive techniques may be feasible and can provide a safe alternative to perineal procedures in elderly patients.