Diseases of the colon and rectum · 1995
Risk of residual rectal mucosa after proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal reconstruction with the double-stapling technique. Postoperative endoscopic follow-up 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.
Slors J F, Ponson A E, Taat C W, Bosma A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess the risk of retained rectal mucosa after proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with the double-stapling technique.
METHODS: A total of 113 patients underwent proctocolectomy with an ileal pouch-anal reconstruction. In 57 patients the anastomosis between pouch and proximal anal canal was performed using the double-stapling technique. In 26 patients the procedure was carried out without a protecting ileostomy. Of the remaining 31 patients with a proximal ileostomy, 15 underwent endoscopy six weeks postoperatively. Circular biopsies were taken just distal from the pouch-anal anastomosis.
RESULTS: Histologic examination revealed rectal mucosa in at least one biopsy in 7 of 15 patients. At follow-up (mean 18 months) no (distal) pouchitis was clinically noticed. In one patient with familial polyposis, a few polyps, distal of the anastomosis, had to be endoscopically removed.
CONCLUSIONS: Double-stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis has a considerable risk of residual rectal mucosa, because of combined linear transection and circular stapling with bilateral dog-ear formation of rectal mucosa. Residual rectal mucosa did not seem to influence clinical results at follow-up.
METHODS: A total of 113 patients underwent proctocolectomy with an ileal pouch-anal reconstruction. In 57 patients the anastomosis between pouch and proximal anal canal was performed using the double-stapling technique. In 26 patients the procedure was carried out without a protecting ileostomy. Of the remaining 31 patients with a proximal ileostomy, 15 underwent endoscopy six weeks postoperatively. Circular biopsies were taken just distal from the pouch-anal anastomosis.
RESULTS: Histologic examination revealed rectal mucosa in at least one biopsy in 7 of 15 patients. At follow-up (mean 18 months) no (distal) pouchitis was clinically noticed. In one patient with familial polyposis, a few polyps, distal of the anastomosis, had to be endoscopically removed.
CONCLUSIONS: Double-stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis has a considerable risk of residual rectal mucosa, because of combined linear transection and circular stapling with bilateral dog-ear formation of rectal mucosa. Residual rectal mucosa did not seem to influence clinical results at follow-up.