减孔腹腔镜直肠切除术治疗全层直肠脱垂。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY BMC Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1186/s12893-024-02545-6
Chikako Kusunoki, Mamoru Uemura, Mao Osaki, Ayumi Nagae, Shinji Tokuyama, Kenji Kawai, Yusuke Takahashi, Masakazu Miyake, Michihiko Miyazaki, Masataka Ikeda, Takeshi Kato
{"title":"减孔腹腔镜直肠切除术治疗全层直肠脱垂。","authors":"Chikako Kusunoki, Mamoru Uemura, Mao Osaki, Ayumi Nagae, Shinji Tokuyama, Kenji Kawai, Yusuke Takahashi, Masakazu Miyake, Michihiko Miyazaki, Masataka Ikeda, Takeshi Kato","doi":"10.1186/s12893-024-02545-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic rectopexy is an established treatment option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Recently, reduced port surgery (RPS) has emerged as a novel concept, offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional multiport surgery (MPS). This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RPS for full-thickness rectal prolapse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From October 2012 to December 2018, 37 patients (MPS: 10 cases, RPS: 27 cases) underwent laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (Wells procedure) is the standard technique for full-thickness rectal prolapse at our hospital. RPS was performed using a multi-channel access device, with an additional 12-mm right-hand port. Short-term outcomes were retrospectively compared between MPS and RPS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed between MPS and RPS in the median operative time, the median blood loss volume, the postoperative complication rates, and median hospital stay duration after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reduced port laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy may serve as an effective therapeutic option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, to establish the superiority of RPS over MPS, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11370075/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reduced port laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse.\",\"authors\":\"Chikako Kusunoki, Mamoru Uemura, Mao Osaki, Ayumi Nagae, Shinji Tokuyama, Kenji Kawai, Yusuke Takahashi, Masakazu Miyake, Michihiko Miyazaki, Masataka Ikeda, Takeshi Kato\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12893-024-02545-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic rectopexy is an established treatment option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Recently, reduced port surgery (RPS) has emerged as a novel concept, offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional multiport surgery (MPS). This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RPS for full-thickness rectal prolapse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From October 2012 to December 2018, 37 patients (MPS: 10 cases, RPS: 27 cases) underwent laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (Wells procedure) is the standard technique for full-thickness rectal prolapse at our hospital. RPS was performed using a multi-channel access device, with an additional 12-mm right-hand port. Short-term outcomes were retrospectively compared between MPS and RPS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed between MPS and RPS in the median operative time, the median blood loss volume, the postoperative complication rates, and median hospital stay duration after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reduced port laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy may serve as an effective therapeutic option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, to establish the superiority of RPS over MPS, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11370075/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02545-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02545-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腹腔镜直肠切除术是治疗全层直肠脱垂的成熟疗法。最近,缩孔手术(RPS)作为一种新概念出现,与传统的多孔手术(MPS)相比,它能减少术后疼痛,改善美容效果。本研究旨在评估RPS治疗全厚直肠脱垂的可行性和安全性:2012年10月至2018年12月,37例患者(MPS:10例,RPS:27例)接受了腹腔镜直肠切除术治疗全厚性直肠脱垂。腹腔镜后网状直肠切除术(Wells术)是我院治疗全厚直肠脱垂的标准技术。腹腔镜直肠切除术使用多通道入路装置进行,并增加了一个12毫米的右侧孔。我们对 MPS 和 RPS 的短期疗效进行了回顾性比较:结果:MPS和RPS在中位手术时间、中位失血量、术后并发症发生率以及术后中位住院时间方面均无明显差异:结论:减孔腹腔镜后网片直肠切除术是治疗全厚直肠脱垂的有效方法。结论:减孔腹腔镜后置网片直肠切除术可作为全厚性直肠脱垂的有效治疗方案,但要确定减孔腹腔镜直肠切除术优于后置网片直肠切除术,还需进行前瞻性随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reduced port laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Background: Laparoscopic rectopexy is an established treatment option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Recently, reduced port surgery (RPS) has emerged as a novel concept, offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional multiport surgery (MPS). This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RPS for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Methods: From October 2012 to December 2018, 37 patients (MPS: 10 cases, RPS: 27 cases) underwent laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (Wells procedure) is the standard technique for full-thickness rectal prolapse at our hospital. RPS was performed using a multi-channel access device, with an additional 12-mm right-hand port. Short-term outcomes were retrospectively compared between MPS and RPS.

Results: No significant differences were observed between MPS and RPS in the median operative time, the median blood loss volume, the postoperative complication rates, and median hospital stay duration after surgery.

Conclusion: Reduced port laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy may serve as an effective therapeutic option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, to establish the superiority of RPS over MPS, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial is warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
期刊最新文献
Real-world study on the application of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in video-assisted thoracoscopic day surgery for pulmonary nodule resection. The seven-day cumulative post-esophagectomy inflammatory response predicts cancer recurrence. Seprafilm® and adhesive small bowel obstruction in colorectal/abdominal surgery: an updated systematic review. The safety and efficacy of stapler method for transection of the pancreatic parenchyma during pancreatoduodenectomy (STRAP-PD trial): study protocol for a randomized control trial. Challenges and opportunities for Mohs surgery implementation in African healthcare systems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1