Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2011
Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse is safe and effective in the elderly. Does this make perineal procedures obsolete?
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.
Wijffels N, Cunningham C, Dixon A, Greenslade G, Lindsey I
Аннотация
AIM: Perineal approaches are considered to be the 'gold standard' in treating elderly patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) because morbidity and mortality with perineal approaches are lower compared with transabdominal approaches. Higher recurrence rates and poorer function are tolerated as a compromise. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) in elderly patients, compared with perineal approaches.
METHOD: The prospectively collected databases from two tertiary referral pelvic floor units were interrogated to identify outcome in patients of 80 years of age and older with full-thickness ERP treated by LVR. The primary end-points were age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) grade, mortality, and major and minor morbidity. Secondary end-points were length of stay (LOS) and recurrence.
RESULTS: Between January 2002 and December 2008, 80 [median age 84 (80-97) years] patients underwent rectopexy. The mean ± standard deviation ASA grade was 2.44 (± 0.57) (two patients were ASA grade I, 42 patients were ASA grade II, 35 patients were ASA grade III and one patient was ASA grade IV). The median LOS was 3 (range 1-37) days. There was no mortality, and 10 (13%) patients had complications (one major and nine minor). At a median follow-up of 23 (2-82) months, two (3%) patients had developed a recurrent full-thickness prolapse.
CONCLUSION: LVR is a safe procedure for using to treat full-thickness ERP in elderly patients. Mortality, morbidity and hospital stay are comparable with published rates for perineal procedures, with a 10-fold lower recurrence.
METHOD: The prospectively collected databases from two tertiary referral pelvic floor units were interrogated to identify outcome in patients of 80 years of age and older with full-thickness ERP treated by LVR. The primary end-points were age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) grade, mortality, and major and minor morbidity. Secondary end-points were length of stay (LOS) and recurrence.
RESULTS: Between January 2002 and December 2008, 80 [median age 84 (80-97) years] patients underwent rectopexy. The mean ± standard deviation ASA grade was 2.44 (± 0.57) (two patients were ASA grade I, 42 patients were ASA grade II, 35 patients were ASA grade III and one patient was ASA grade IV). The median LOS was 3 (range 1-37) days. There was no mortality, and 10 (13%) patients had complications (one major and nine minor). At a median follow-up of 23 (2-82) months, two (3%) patients had developed a recurrent full-thickness prolapse.
CONCLUSION: LVR is a safe procedure for using to treat full-thickness ERP in elderly patients. Mortality, morbidity and hospital stay are comparable with published rates for perineal procedures, with a 10-fold lower recurrence.