The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica · 1997
Comparison of polyglycolic acid and polypropylene mesh for rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Galili Y, Rabau M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of absorbable and non-absorbable mesh for rectal fixation in abdominal rectopexy.
DESIGN: Prospective open study.
SETTING: University hospital, Israel.
SUBJECTS: 37 consecutive patients with complete rectal prolapse.
INTERVENTIONS: Posterior abdominal rectopexy with non-absorbable mesh (Polypropylene, Prolene, Ethicon Ltd) in 17 patients and with absorbable mesh (Polyglycolic acid, Dexon, Davis & Geck) in 20.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: There was no operative mortality, and there were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of postoperative complications. Mean (SD) follow up was 3.6(0.5) years and 3.8(0.7) years in the Dexon and Prolene groups, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative performance indices based on the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Dexon mesh may be as effective as Prolene mesh in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse. A performance index seems to be a useful tool for evaluating the outcome of patients after repair of complete rectal prolapse.
DESIGN: Prospective open study.
SETTING: University hospital, Israel.
SUBJECTS: 37 consecutive patients with complete rectal prolapse.
INTERVENTIONS: Posterior abdominal rectopexy with non-absorbable mesh (Polypropylene, Prolene, Ethicon Ltd) in 17 patients and with absorbable mesh (Polyglycolic acid, Dexon, Davis & Geck) in 20.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: There was no operative mortality, and there were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of postoperative complications. Mean (SD) follow up was 3.6(0.5) years and 3.8(0.7) years in the Dexon and Prolene groups, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative performance indices based on the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Dexon mesh may be as effective as Prolene mesh in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse. A performance index seems to be a useful tool for evaluating the outcome of patients after repair of complete rectal prolapse.