Aging clinical and experimental research · 2016
Ventral mesh rectopexy versus conventional suture technique: a single-institutional experience.
Сравнительное 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.
Luglio Gaetano, Tarquini Rachele, Giglio Mariano Cesare, Sollazzo Viviana, Peltrini Roberto, Sacco Michele, Spiezio Giovanni, Amato Bruno, De Palma Giovanni Domenico, Bucci Luigi
Аннотация
AIMS: Anterior mesh rectopexy is a novel surgical technique for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse, a common disorder in female elderly patients. Aim of the study was to evaluate functional outcomes after ventral mesh rectopexy and conventional suture rectopexy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients have been enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were divided into two groups: 20 patients (group A) had a conventional suture rectopexy with a standard technique and 20 patients (group B) underwent an anterior mesh rectopexy. Each patient had a clinic and defecographic diagnosis of full-thickness rectal prolapse, which was further investigated with manometry and clinical questionnaires (Wexner Constipation and Incontinence Score, Rome III criteria). Postoperative outcomes were evaluated through clinical questionnaires, a rigid rectosigmoidoscopy and a defecography, 1 year after surgery.
RESULTS: Preoperative Wexner constipation score was greater than 15 in all the patients (21 in group A and 22 in group B); median postoperative score was 15 in group A and 11 in group B, and the difference was significant. Median preoperative incontinence score was 11 in group A and 12 in group B; median postoperative score was 9 in group A and 6 in group B. Three patients experienced recurrence in group A and only 1 patient in group B.
CONCLUSION: Ventral mesh rectopexy is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of full-thickness rectal prolapse in a well-fit geriatric population. Better functional results have been achieved compared with conventional suture technique with a trend toward a lower recurrence rate.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients have been enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were divided into two groups: 20 patients (group A) had a conventional suture rectopexy with a standard technique and 20 patients (group B) underwent an anterior mesh rectopexy. Each patient had a clinic and defecographic diagnosis of full-thickness rectal prolapse, which was further investigated with manometry and clinical questionnaires (Wexner Constipation and Incontinence Score, Rome III criteria). Postoperative outcomes were evaluated through clinical questionnaires, a rigid rectosigmoidoscopy and a defecography, 1 year after surgery.
RESULTS: Preoperative Wexner constipation score was greater than 15 in all the patients (21 in group A and 22 in group B); median postoperative score was 15 in group A and 11 in group B, and the difference was significant. Median preoperative incontinence score was 11 in group A and 12 in group B; median postoperative score was 9 in group A and 6 in group B. Three patients experienced recurrence in group A and only 1 patient in group B.
CONCLUSION: Ventral mesh rectopexy is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of full-thickness rectal prolapse in a well-fit geriatric population. Better functional results have been achieved compared with conventional suture technique with a trend toward a lower recurrence rate.