切除直肠固定术是治疗复杂盆底疾病的多学科方法的一部分。

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY Innovative Surgical Sciences Pub Date : 2023-07-31 eCollection Date: 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1515/iss-2022-0027
Georgi Kalev, Christoph Marquardt, Marten Schmerer, Anja Ulrich, Wolfgang Heyl, Thomas Schiedeck
{"title":"切除直肠固定术是治疗复杂盆底疾病的多学科方法的一部分。","authors":"Georgi Kalev,&nbsp;Christoph Marquardt,&nbsp;Marten Schmerer,&nbsp;Anja Ulrich,&nbsp;Wolfgang Heyl,&nbsp;Thomas Schiedeck","doi":"10.1515/iss-2022-0027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Pelvic floor disorders are frequently caused by an organ prolapse involving multiple pelvic floor compartments. In such cases, a multidisciplinary strategy for diagnostic work-up and therapy is required.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients who underwent transabdominal rectopexy/resection rectopexy alone or in combination with simultaneous gynecological pelvic floor reconstruction at our institution between 01/2006 and 12/2021 were included in this retrospective study. The study aimed to evaluate the functional outcome and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and eighty seven patients were assigned to one of the following groups: PG1 - patient group one: after resection rectopexy (n=141); PG2 - after ventral rectopexy (n=8); PG3 - after combined resection rectopexy and sacro (cervico)colpopexy (n=62); PG4 - after combined resection rectopexy and <i>trans</i>-vaginal pelvic floor repair (n=76). The duration of follow-up was 14 months for PG1 (median, IQR 37 months), 11 months for PG2 (mean, SD 9 months), 7 months for PG 3 (median, IQR 33 months), and 12 months for PG 4 (median, IQR 51 Months). The surgical procedure resulted in improvement of symptoms related to obstructed defecation in 56.4 % (22/39) of the patients in PG1, 25 % in PG2 (1/4), 62.5 % (20/32) in PG3, and 71.8 % (28/39) in PG4. \"<i>De novo</i>\" constipation was reported by 2.4 % (2/141) of patients from PG1. Improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms was reported by 69 % (40/58) of patients in PG1, 100 % in PG2 (2/2), 93.1 % (27/29) in PG3, and 87.2 % (34/39) in PG4. The recurrence rate for external rectal prolapse was 7.1 % in PG1, 50 % in PG2 (1/2), 2.7 % in PG3, and 6.3 % in PG4. A significant difference in terms of severe morbidity (grade ≥ IIIb) and mortality could not be determined between the non-interdisciplinary (PG1 with PG2) and interdisciplinary surgery (PG3 with PG4) (p=0.88, p=0.499).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on our results, we can assume that combined surgery is as feasible as rectal surgery alone. In our study, combined interventions were effective and not associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":44186,"journal":{"name":"Innovative Surgical Sciences","volume":"8 1","pages":"29-36"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10576551/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Resection rectopexy as part of the multidisciplinary approach in the management of complex pelvic floor disorders.\",\"authors\":\"Georgi Kalev,&nbsp;Christoph Marquardt,&nbsp;Marten Schmerer,&nbsp;Anja Ulrich,&nbsp;Wolfgang Heyl,&nbsp;Thomas Schiedeck\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/iss-2022-0027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Pelvic floor disorders are frequently caused by an organ prolapse involving multiple pelvic floor compartments. In such cases, a multidisciplinary strategy for diagnostic work-up and therapy is required.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients who underwent transabdominal rectopexy/resection rectopexy alone or in combination with simultaneous gynecological pelvic floor reconstruction at our institution between 01/2006 and 12/2021 were included in this retrospective study. The study aimed to evaluate the functional outcome and postoperative complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and eighty seven patients were assigned to one of the following groups: PG1 - patient group one: after resection rectopexy (n=141); PG2 - after ventral rectopexy (n=8); PG3 - after combined resection rectopexy and sacro (cervico)colpopexy (n=62); PG4 - after combined resection rectopexy and <i>trans</i>-vaginal pelvic floor repair (n=76). The duration of follow-up was 14 months for PG1 (median, IQR 37 months), 11 months for PG2 (mean, SD 9 months), 7 months for PG 3 (median, IQR 33 months), and 12 months for PG 4 (median, IQR 51 Months). The surgical procedure resulted in improvement of symptoms related to obstructed defecation in 56.4 % (22/39) of the patients in PG1, 25 % in PG2 (1/4), 62.5 % (20/32) in PG3, and 71.8 % (28/39) in PG4. \\\"<i>De novo</i>\\\" constipation was reported by 2.4 % (2/141) of patients from PG1. Improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms was reported by 69 % (40/58) of patients in PG1, 100 % in PG2 (2/2), 93.1 % (27/29) in PG3, and 87.2 % (34/39) in PG4. The recurrence rate for external rectal prolapse was 7.1 % in PG1, 50 % in PG2 (1/2), 2.7 % in PG3, and 6.3 % in PG4. A significant difference in terms of severe morbidity (grade ≥ IIIb) and mortality could not be determined between the non-interdisciplinary (PG1 with PG2) and interdisciplinary surgery (PG3 with PG4) (p=0.88, p=0.499).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on our results, we can assume that combined surgery is as feasible as rectal surgery alone. In our study, combined interventions were effective and not associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovative Surgical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"29-36\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10576551/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovative Surgical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2022-0027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovative Surgical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2022-0027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:盆底疾病通常是由涉及多个盆底隔间的器官脱垂引起的。在这种情况下,需要采用多学科的诊断检查和治疗策略。方法:本回顾性研究纳入了2006年1月至2021年12月期间在我院单独或同时进行妇科盆底重建的所有患者。本研究旨在评估功能结果和术后并发症。结果:287例患者被分为以下组之一:PG1-患者第一组:切除后直肠固定术(n=141);PG2-腹侧直肠固定术后(n=8);PG3-直肠固定和骶(颈)阴道联合切除术后(n=62);PG4-联合切除直肠固定术和经阴道盆底修复术后(n=76)。PG1的随访时间为14个月(中位数,IQR 37个月),PG2为11个月(平均,SD 9个月)、PG3为7个月(中值,IQR 33个月)和PG4为12个月(中点,IQR 51 月份)。手术治疗改善了56.4例排便障碍相关症状 % (22/39)PG1患者,25 % PG2(1/4),62.5 % PG3中的(20/32)和71.8 % (28/39)在PG4中。2.4 % (2/141)PG1患者。69人报告大便失禁症状有所改善 % (40/58)PG1100患者 % PG2(2/2),93.1 % PG3中的(27/29)和87.2 % (34/39)。直肠外脱垂的复发率为7.1 % 在PG1中,50 % 在PG2(1/2)中,2.7 % PG3和6.3 % 在PG4中。非跨学科(PG1与PG2)和跨学科手术(PG3与PG4)在严重发病率(≥IIIb级)和死亡率方面无法确定显著差异(p=0.88,p=0.499)。结论:根据我们的结果,我们可以假设联合手术与单独直肠手术一样可行。在我们的研究中,联合干预是有效的,并且与术后并发症的风险增加无关。
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
Resection rectopexy as part of the multidisciplinary approach in the management of complex pelvic floor disorders.

Objectives: Pelvic floor disorders are frequently caused by an organ prolapse involving multiple pelvic floor compartments. In such cases, a multidisciplinary strategy for diagnostic work-up and therapy is required.

Methods: All patients who underwent transabdominal rectopexy/resection rectopexy alone or in combination with simultaneous gynecological pelvic floor reconstruction at our institution between 01/2006 and 12/2021 were included in this retrospective study. The study aimed to evaluate the functional outcome and postoperative complications.

Results: Two hundred and eighty seven patients were assigned to one of the following groups: PG1 - patient group one: after resection rectopexy (n=141); PG2 - after ventral rectopexy (n=8); PG3 - after combined resection rectopexy and sacro (cervico)colpopexy (n=62); PG4 - after combined resection rectopexy and trans-vaginal pelvic floor repair (n=76). The duration of follow-up was 14 months for PG1 (median, IQR 37 months), 11 months for PG2 (mean, SD 9 months), 7 months for PG 3 (median, IQR 33 months), and 12 months for PG 4 (median, IQR 51 Months). The surgical procedure resulted in improvement of symptoms related to obstructed defecation in 56.4 % (22/39) of the patients in PG1, 25 % in PG2 (1/4), 62.5 % (20/32) in PG3, and 71.8 % (28/39) in PG4. "De novo" constipation was reported by 2.4 % (2/141) of patients from PG1. Improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms was reported by 69 % (40/58) of patients in PG1, 100 % in PG2 (2/2), 93.1 % (27/29) in PG3, and 87.2 % (34/39) in PG4. The recurrence rate for external rectal prolapse was 7.1 % in PG1, 50 % in PG2 (1/2), 2.7 % in PG3, and 6.3 % in PG4. A significant difference in terms of severe morbidity (grade ≥ IIIb) and mortality could not be determined between the non-interdisciplinary (PG1 with PG2) and interdisciplinary surgery (PG3 with PG4) (p=0.88, p=0.499).

Conclusions: Based on our results, we can assume that combined surgery is as feasible as rectal surgery alone. In our study, combined interventions were effective and not associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications.

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
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Periprosthetic joint infections - a scoping review. What's new in surgery? Essentials 2024 - young patients and fast decisions. A narrative review of present knowledge and digital approaches in orthognathic surgery. Update burn surgery: overview of current multidisciplinary treatment concepts. Early enteral nutrition (EEN) following intestinal anastomosis in pediatric patients - what's new?
×
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