Digestive surgery · 2009
Redo procedure for prolapse and haemorrhoids (PPH) for persistent and recurrent prolapse after PPH.
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.
Festen S, van Geloven A A W, Gerhards M F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Procedures for haemorrhoidal prolapse that maintain functional haemorrhoidal anatomy are progressively used. The procedure for prolapse and haemorrhoids (PPH) has advantages over conventional haemorrhoidectomy, but is associated with a higher recurrence rate. The feasibility and efficiency of a second PPH instead of haemorrhoidectomy in case of recurrent symptoms were studied.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients that were treated with PPH for haemorrhoidal prolapse in our hospital between May 2002 and November 2008. All patients in need for a second PPH because of persistent or recurrent symptoms of prolapse were identified and analyzed.
RESULTS: Out of 137 patients who underwent a PPH, 22 patients (16%) were in need of a reoperation for symptoms of prolapse. Of these, 12 (55%) were treated with a second PPH. Successful prolapse reduction was achieved in 11 out of 12 patients. No postoperative complications were encountered during a median follow-up of 35 months.
CONCLUSION: Redo PPH, in case of persisting or recurrent symptoms of haemorrhoidal prolapse after PPH, is feasible and is a good alternative for excisional haemorrhoidectomy. It possesses the same advantages over haemorrhoidectomy as the initial PPH and does not lead to more morbidity.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients that were treated with PPH for haemorrhoidal prolapse in our hospital between May 2002 and November 2008. All patients in need for a second PPH because of persistent or recurrent symptoms of prolapse were identified and analyzed.
RESULTS: Out of 137 patients who underwent a PPH, 22 patients (16%) were in need of a reoperation for symptoms of prolapse. Of these, 12 (55%) were treated with a second PPH. Successful prolapse reduction was achieved in 11 out of 12 patients. No postoperative complications were encountered during a median follow-up of 35 months.
CONCLUSION: Redo PPH, in case of persisting or recurrent symptoms of haemorrhoidal prolapse after PPH, is feasible and is a good alternative for excisional haemorrhoidectomy. It possesses the same advantages over haemorrhoidectomy as the initial PPH and does not lead to more morbidity.