American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2007
De novo rectal prolapse after obliterative and reconstructive vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse.
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.
Collins Sarah A, Jelovsek J Eric, Chen Chi Chiung Grace, Gustilo-Ashby A Marcus, Barber Matthew D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of de novo rectal prolapse after obliterative vaginal surgery with the incidence that was seen after reconstructive vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse.
STUDY DESIGN: A chart review was performed on subjects who underwent vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse from Jan. 1, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2004, at the Cleveland Clinic. Diagnosis of postoperative rectal prolapse was identified with ICD-9 code 569.1.
RESULTS: Nine hundred sixteen women underwent vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse. Ninety-two percent of the women (n = 840) underwent reconstructive surgery, and 8% of the women (n = 76) underwent obliterative surgery. The incidence of postoperative full-thickness rectal prolapse in women who were > or = 65 years old who underwent obliterative surgery was 3 of 74 (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.4-11), with an estimated odds ratio of 22 (95% CI, 2.3-196; P < .002) compared with women who were > or = 65 years old who underwent reconstructive surgery.
CONCLUSION: Obliterative surgery is associated with a substantially greater risk of de novo rectal prolapse than reconstructive vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse.
STUDY DESIGN: A chart review was performed on subjects who underwent vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse from Jan. 1, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2004, at the Cleveland Clinic. Diagnosis of postoperative rectal prolapse was identified with ICD-9 code 569.1.
RESULTS: Nine hundred sixteen women underwent vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse. Ninety-two percent of the women (n = 840) underwent reconstructive surgery, and 8% of the women (n = 76) underwent obliterative surgery. The incidence of postoperative full-thickness rectal prolapse in women who were > or = 65 years old who underwent obliterative surgery was 3 of 74 (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.4-11), with an estimated odds ratio of 22 (95% CI, 2.3-196; P < .002) compared with women who were > or = 65 years old who underwent reconstructive surgery.
CONCLUSION: Obliterative surgery is associated with a substantially greater risk of de novo rectal prolapse than reconstructive vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse.