International journal of colorectal disease · 2017
Should we offer ventral rectopexy to patients with recurrent external rectal prolapse?
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.
Gurland Brooke, E Carvalho Maria Emilia Carvalho, Ridgeway Beri, Paraiso Marie Fidela R, Hull Tracy, Zutshi Massarat
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: For patients with rectal prolapse undergoing Ventral Rectopexy (VR), the impact of prior prolapse surgery on prolapse recurrence is not well described.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare recurrence rates after VR in patients undergoing primary and repeat rectal prolapse repairs.
DESIGN: This study is a prospective cohort study.
METHODS: IRB-approved prospective data registry of consecutive patients undergoing VR for full-thickness external rectal prolapse between 2009 and 2015.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rectal prolapse recurrence was defined as either external prolapse through the anal sphincters or symptomatic rectal mucosa prolapse warranting additional surgery. Preoperative and postoperative morbidity and functional outcomes were analyzed. Actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS: A total of 108 VRs were performed during the study period. Seventy-two were primary and 36 repeat repairs. Seven cases were open, 23 laparoscopic, and 78 robotic. Six cases were converted from laparoscopic/robotic to open. In 63 patients, VR was combined with gynecological procedures. There were no statistical differences between primary or recurrent prolapse for the following: demographics, operative time, concomitant gynecologic procedures, complications, blood loss, and graft material type. Length of stay was longer in patients with a history of prior prolapse surgery (p = 0.01). Prolapse recurrence rates for primary repairs were reported at 1.4, 6.9, and 9.7% and for recurrent prolapse procedures 13.9, 25, and 25% at 1, 3, and 5 years (p = 0.13). Mean length of follow-up was similar between groups. Time to recurrence was significantly shorter in patients undergoing repeat prolapse surgery 8.8 vs 30.7 months (p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: VR is a better option for patients undergoing primary rectal prolapse repair.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare recurrence rates after VR in patients undergoing primary and repeat rectal prolapse repairs.
DESIGN: This study is a prospective cohort study.
METHODS: IRB-approved prospective data registry of consecutive patients undergoing VR for full-thickness external rectal prolapse between 2009 and 2015.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rectal prolapse recurrence was defined as either external prolapse through the anal sphincters or symptomatic rectal mucosa prolapse warranting additional surgery. Preoperative and postoperative morbidity and functional outcomes were analyzed. Actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS: A total of 108 VRs were performed during the study period. Seventy-two were primary and 36 repeat repairs. Seven cases were open, 23 laparoscopic, and 78 robotic. Six cases were converted from laparoscopic/robotic to open. In 63 patients, VR was combined with gynecological procedures. There were no statistical differences between primary or recurrent prolapse for the following: demographics, operative time, concomitant gynecologic procedures, complications, blood loss, and graft material type. Length of stay was longer in patients with a history of prior prolapse surgery (p = 0.01). Prolapse recurrence rates for primary repairs were reported at 1.4, 6.9, and 9.7% and for recurrent prolapse procedures 13.9, 25, and 25% at 1, 3, and 5 years (p = 0.13). Mean length of follow-up was similar between groups. Time to recurrence was significantly shorter in patients undergoing repeat prolapse surgery 8.8 vs 30.7 months (p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: VR is a better option for patients undergoing primary rectal prolapse repair.