Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2015
Management and Outcome of Mucosal Injury During Pyloromyotomy--An Analytical Survey Study.
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.
Waldron L Sibylle, St Peter Shawn D, Muensterer Oliver J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Different approaches of dealing with mucosal injury during pyloromyotomy for hypertrophic pyloric stenosis have been described. There is, however, no consensus on the best technique to use. We conducted a survey among International Pediatric Endosurgery Group (IPEG) members on their experience of mucosal injuries during pyloromyotomy, the way in which these were handled, any modification in subsequent postoperative care, and impact on outcome.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A confidential survey was sent to IPEG members querying demographic data, number of pyloromyotomies performed, operative approach, incidence of mucosal injury, intraoperative management, and postoperative consequences. Statistical analysis was performed to determine factors associated with complications and outcome.
RESULTS: In total, 231 mucosa injuries were included in the study. Of these, 93% were noticed intraoperatively. Cases were nearly equally distributed between laparoscopic (49%) and open (51%) procedures, and the risk of mucosal injuries was no different between the two. Most surgeons addressed mucosal perforation with primary mucosal repair (70%), whereas a minority (27%) performed full-thickness closure, rotation, and repyloromyotomy in a different quadrant. Common alterations in management included delay in feeding (84%), longer hospital stay (30%), and contrast study before feeding (12%). The vast majority of patients had no adverse sequelae after a mucosal injury (96%), but three patients underwent re-operation. No correlations were found between repair method and complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal injuries that are noticed and addressed intraoperatively resulted in few complications, regardless of the repair method. Among the queried surgeons, primary mucosal repair is the current standard of care. Primary mucosal repair is equivalent to full-thickness closure in terms of complications and outcome.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A confidential survey was sent to IPEG members querying demographic data, number of pyloromyotomies performed, operative approach, incidence of mucosal injury, intraoperative management, and postoperative consequences. Statistical analysis was performed to determine factors associated with complications and outcome.
RESULTS: In total, 231 mucosa injuries were included in the study. Of these, 93% were noticed intraoperatively. Cases were nearly equally distributed between laparoscopic (49%) and open (51%) procedures, and the risk of mucosal injuries was no different between the two. Most surgeons addressed mucosal perforation with primary mucosal repair (70%), whereas a minority (27%) performed full-thickness closure, rotation, and repyloromyotomy in a different quadrant. Common alterations in management included delay in feeding (84%), longer hospital stay (30%), and contrast study before feeding (12%). The vast majority of patients had no adverse sequelae after a mucosal injury (96%), but three patients underwent re-operation. No correlations were found between repair method and complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal injuries that are noticed and addressed intraoperatively resulted in few complications, regardless of the repair method. Among the queried surgeons, primary mucosal repair is the current standard of care. Primary mucosal repair is equivalent to full-thickness closure in terms of complications and outcome.