腹腔镜缝合与网状直肠固定术治疗儿童持续性完全性直肠脱垂:一项比较随机研究。

IF 1.3 Q3 SURGERY Minimally Invasive Surgery Pub Date : 2020-01-22 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2020/3057528
AbdelAziz Yehya, Ibrahim Gamaan, Mohamed Abdelrazek, Mohamed Shahin, Ashraf Seddek, Mohamed Abdelhafez
{"title":"腹腔镜缝合与网状直肠固定术治疗儿童持续性完全性直肠脱垂:一项比较随机研究。","authors":"AbdelAziz Yehya,&nbsp;Ibrahim Gamaan,&nbsp;Mohamed Abdelrazek,&nbsp;Mohamed Shahin,&nbsp;Ashraf Seddek,&nbsp;Mohamed Abdelhafez","doi":"10.1155/2020/3057528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare laparoscopic mesh rectopexy with laparoscopic suture rectopexy. <i>Patients and Methods</i>. The prospective study was conducted at Pediatric Surgery Department, Al-Azhar University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt between Feb 2010 and Jan 2015. Seventy-eight children with persistent complete rectal prolapse were subjected to laparoscopic rectopexy. Fourteen parents refused to participate. All patients received initial conservative treatment for more than one year. The remaining 64 patients were randomized divided into two equal groups. Group A; 32 patients underwent laparoscopic mesh rectopexy and group B, 32 underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy. The operative time, recurrence rate, post-operative constipation, and effect on fecal incontinence, were reported and evaluated for each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-four cases presented with persistent complete rectal prolapse were the material of this study. They were 40 males and 24 females. Mean age at operation was 8 (5-12) years. All cases were completed laparoscopically. Mean operative time in laparoscopic suture rectopexy was shorter than laparoscopic mesh rectopexy group. No early post-operative complications were encountered. No cases of recurrence with mesh rectopexy group while in suture rectopexy group it was 4 cases (14.2%). Post-operative constipation occurred in one case (3.57%) in suture rectopexy group and occurred in one case (3.3%) in mesh rectopexy group. Fecal incontinence improved in 26/28 cases (92.8%) in suture rectopexy while in mesh rectopexy it was improved in 30/30 cases (100%) of cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both laparoscopic mesh and suture rectopexy are feasible and reliable methods for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse in children. However, no recurrence, low incidence of constipation and high improvement of incontinence at follow up more than 36 months with mesh rectopexy accordingly, we considered mesh rectopexy to be the procedure of choice in treatment of complete rectal prolapse.</p>","PeriodicalId":45110,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","volume":"2020 ","pages":"3057528"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/3057528","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic Suture versus Mesh Rectopexy for the Treatment of Persistent Complete Rectal Prolapse in Children: A Comparative Randomized Study.\",\"authors\":\"AbdelAziz Yehya,&nbsp;Ibrahim Gamaan,&nbsp;Mohamed Abdelrazek,&nbsp;Mohamed Shahin,&nbsp;Ashraf Seddek,&nbsp;Mohamed Abdelhafez\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2020/3057528\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare laparoscopic mesh rectopexy with laparoscopic suture rectopexy. <i>Patients and Methods</i>. The prospective study was conducted at Pediatric Surgery Department, Al-Azhar University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt between Feb 2010 and Jan 2015. Seventy-eight children with persistent complete rectal prolapse were subjected to laparoscopic rectopexy. Fourteen parents refused to participate. All patients received initial conservative treatment for more than one year. The remaining 64 patients were randomized divided into two equal groups. Group A; 32 patients underwent laparoscopic mesh rectopexy and group B, 32 underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy. The operative time, recurrence rate, post-operative constipation, and effect on fecal incontinence, were reported and evaluated for each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-four cases presented with persistent complete rectal prolapse were the material of this study. They were 40 males and 24 females. Mean age at operation was 8 (5-12) years. All cases were completed laparoscopically. Mean operative time in laparoscopic suture rectopexy was shorter than laparoscopic mesh rectopexy group. No early post-operative complications were encountered. No cases of recurrence with mesh rectopexy group while in suture rectopexy group it was 4 cases (14.2%). Post-operative constipation occurred in one case (3.57%) in suture rectopexy group and occurred in one case (3.3%) in mesh rectopexy group. Fecal incontinence improved in 26/28 cases (92.8%) in suture rectopexy while in mesh rectopexy it was improved in 30/30 cases (100%) of cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both laparoscopic mesh and suture rectopexy are feasible and reliable methods for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse in children. However, no recurrence, low incidence of constipation and high improvement of incontinence at follow up more than 36 months with mesh rectopexy accordingly, we considered mesh rectopexy to be the procedure of choice in treatment of complete rectal prolapse.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45110,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minimally Invasive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"2020 \",\"pages\":\"3057528\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/3057528\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minimally Invasive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3057528\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3057528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的:比较腹腔镜网状直肠固定术与腹腔镜缝合直肠固定术。患者和方法。该前瞻性研究于2010年2月至2015年1月在埃及开罗爱资哈尔大学医院儿科外科进行。对78例持续性完全性直肠脱垂患儿施行腹腔镜直肠固定术。14位家长拒绝参与。所有患者均接受保守治疗1年以上。其余64例患者随机分为两组。A组;B组32例行腹腔镜补片直肠固定术,B组32例行腹腔镜缝合直肠固定术。报告并评价各组手术时间、复发率、术后便秘及对大便失禁的影响。结果:64例以持续性完全性直肠脱垂为研究对象。其中男性40人,女性24人。平均手术年龄为8岁(5-12岁)。所有病例均在腹腔镜下完成。腹腔镜缝合直肠固定术组平均手术时间短于腹腔镜网状直肠固定术组。术后未见早期并发症。补片直肠固定术组无复发病例,缝合直肠固定术组4例(14.2%)。缝合直肠固定术组术后便秘1例(3.57%),网状直肠固定术组术后便秘1例(3.3%)。缝线直肠固定术改善大便失禁26/28例(92.8%),网状直肠固定术改善大便失禁30/30例(100%)。结论:腹腔镜补片和缝合直肠固定术是治疗儿童完全性直肠脱垂的可行、可靠的方法。然而,经36个月以上随访,直肠网状固定术无复发,便秘发生率低,尿失禁改善程度高,因此我们认为直肠网状固定术是治疗完全性直肠脱垂的首选方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Laparoscopic Suture versus Mesh Rectopexy for the Treatment of Persistent Complete Rectal Prolapse in Children: A Comparative Randomized Study.

Purpose: To compare laparoscopic mesh rectopexy with laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Patients and Methods. The prospective study was conducted at Pediatric Surgery Department, Al-Azhar University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt between Feb 2010 and Jan 2015. Seventy-eight children with persistent complete rectal prolapse were subjected to laparoscopic rectopexy. Fourteen parents refused to participate. All patients received initial conservative treatment for more than one year. The remaining 64 patients were randomized divided into two equal groups. Group A; 32 patients underwent laparoscopic mesh rectopexy and group B, 32 underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy. The operative time, recurrence rate, post-operative constipation, and effect on fecal incontinence, were reported and evaluated for each group.

Results: Sixty-four cases presented with persistent complete rectal prolapse were the material of this study. They were 40 males and 24 females. Mean age at operation was 8 (5-12) years. All cases were completed laparoscopically. Mean operative time in laparoscopic suture rectopexy was shorter than laparoscopic mesh rectopexy group. No early post-operative complications were encountered. No cases of recurrence with mesh rectopexy group while in suture rectopexy group it was 4 cases (14.2%). Post-operative constipation occurred in one case (3.57%) in suture rectopexy group and occurred in one case (3.3%) in mesh rectopexy group. Fecal incontinence improved in 26/28 cases (92.8%) in suture rectopexy while in mesh rectopexy it was improved in 30/30 cases (100%) of cases.

Conclusion: Both laparoscopic mesh and suture rectopexy are feasible and reliable methods for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse in children. However, no recurrence, low incidence of constipation and high improvement of incontinence at follow up more than 36 months with mesh rectopexy accordingly, we considered mesh rectopexy to be the procedure of choice in treatment of complete rectal prolapse.

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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Mortality and Postoperative Complications Between Open and Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: An Umbrella Review. Initial Experience of Robot-Assisted Nephroureterectomy without Intraoperative Repositioning Using a New Robotic Surgical System (KD-SR-01TM). Comparison of Perioperative, Functional, and Oncological Outcomes of Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Gastrectomy in Patients with Situs Inversus Totalis: A Systematic Review. Clinical Factors to Predict Difficult Ureter during Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy.
×
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