MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1002/jso.20591

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of surgical oncology · 2006

The Kraske procedure: a critical analysis of a surgical approach for mid-rectal lesions.

Onaitis Mark, Ludwig Kirk, Perez-Tamayo Anthony, Gottfried Marcia, Russell Linda, Shadduck Phillip, Pappas Theodore, Seigler Hilliard F, Tyler Douglas S

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND AND

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the Kraske procedure as an approach to mid-rectal disease.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients underwent a Kraske procedure at either Duke University Medical Center, the Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, or the Durham Regional Hospital between 1992 and 1997. The clinical and pathologic characteristics of these patients were retrospectively analyzed and compared with previous published series.

RESULTS

Of the 22 patients, 13 underwent resection of an adenocarcinoma and 9 underwent resection of a villous adenoma. Post-operative complications included four fecal fistulas (two of which required a temporary diverting colostomy), two wound infections, two cases of urinary retention, and one case of transient fecal incontinence.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kraske procedure minimizes exposure of mid-rectal lesions without the morbidity of a major laparotomy. However, it does carry a moderate complication rate and thus should be utilized selectively in managing patients with mid-rectal tumors not amenable to other treatment options.

Для цитирования: Onaitis Mark, Ludwig Kirk, Perez-Tamayo Anthony, Gottfried Marcia, Russell Linda, Shadduck Phillip, Pappas Theodore, Seigler Hilliard F, Tyler Douglas S. The Kraske procedure: a critical analysis of a surgical approach for mid-rectal lesions.. Journal of surgical oncology. 2006. DOI: 10.1002/jso.20591.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.