European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2007
The use of silicone expander and cecal transposition after pelvic exenteration.
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.
Guimarães G C, Baiocchi G, Rossi B M, Ferreira F O, Aguiar S, Nakagawa W T, Lopes A
Аннотация
AIMS: Describe a new approach for pelvic floor treatment employing a temporary mechanical support device with silicone expander, with or without association to cecal transposition.
METHODS: From January 2000 to June 2006, 106 patients were submitted to pelvic exenteration. A retrospective evaluation was done of the last 30 patients previously submitted to total pelvic exenteration without neither urinary nor faecal sphincter preservation who latter were submitted to a pelvic floor treatment with silicone expander with or without association to cecal rotation.
RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were female and four male. The most common primary neoplasm site were of gynecological origin (20 cases). The median follow-up period was 12 months (0.36-38). Only one patient presented small intestine loops slipping after expander removal. No other patient had small intestine loops slippage into the pelvis, probably because of cecal transposition. All patients were submitted to a post-operative CT scan to confirm that intestinal loops remained out of the pelvis. Six patients presented pelvic hollow infection after device removal. All cases had complete resolution with local cleaning using physiological solution associated with systemic antibiotic therapy, except one who needed a trans-abdominal surgical approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic floor treatment employing a temporary mechanical support device with silicone expander, associated or not to cecal transposition is a low-morbidity procedure. The most common complication is pelvic floor infection, but maintaining a cutaneous perineal hole allows easy access and treatment of possible pelvic abscesses as well as early recurrence diagnosis.
METHODS: From January 2000 to June 2006, 106 patients were submitted to pelvic exenteration. A retrospective evaluation was done of the last 30 patients previously submitted to total pelvic exenteration without neither urinary nor faecal sphincter preservation who latter were submitted to a pelvic floor treatment with silicone expander with or without association to cecal rotation.
RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were female and four male. The most common primary neoplasm site were of gynecological origin (20 cases). The median follow-up period was 12 months (0.36-38). Only one patient presented small intestine loops slipping after expander removal. No other patient had small intestine loops slippage into the pelvis, probably because of cecal transposition. All patients were submitted to a post-operative CT scan to confirm that intestinal loops remained out of the pelvis. Six patients presented pelvic hollow infection after device removal. All cases had complete resolution with local cleaning using physiological solution associated with systemic antibiotic therapy, except one who needed a trans-abdominal surgical approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic floor treatment employing a temporary mechanical support device with silicone expander, associated or not to cecal transposition is a low-morbidity procedure. The most common complication is pelvic floor infection, but maintaining a cutaneous perineal hole allows easy access and treatment of possible pelvic abscesses as well as early recurrence diagnosis.