直肠腺癌腹外展切除后会阴伤口的结果-三级护理中心的经验

Q1 Medicine Wound Medicine Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.wndm.2020.100184
Royson Dsouza, Gigi Varghese, Rohin Mittal, Mark Ranjan Jesudason
{"title":"直肠腺癌腹外展切除后会阴伤口的结果-三级护理中心的经验","authors":"Royson Dsouza,&nbsp;Gigi Varghese,&nbsp;Rohin Mittal,&nbsp;Mark Ranjan Jesudason","doi":"10.1016/j.wndm.2020.100184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Extralevator Abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer<span><span> results in a large perineal defect, often requiring reconstruction by a biological or absorbable mesh or a flap as compared to conventional Abdominoperineal excision (CAPE). Although there are indications for oncological superiority with ELAPE, the incidence of wound-related complications is postulated to be higher when compared to CAPE due to the removal of more amount of tissue around the anorectum. On the other hand, the incidence of inadvertent rectal tube perforation during dissection is lesser in ELAPE and hence perineal wound breakdown and infection are postulated to be lesser in some other studies. We conducted a retrospective study in the department of colorectal surgery, Christian Medical College; Vellore from 2011 to 2017 to compare the perineal wound-related complications following CAPE and ELAPE. The data were retrieved from the prospectively maintained computerized inpatient and out-patient follow up records and comparisons were made in terms of incidence of perineal wound outcomes, need for </span>reoperations<span><span> and duration of hospital stay. A total of 138 patients underwent CAPE and 57 patients underwent ELAPE over a period of 7 years. There was no statistical difference in baseline characteristics and patients who underwent neo-adjuvant chemoradiation between the two groups. Perineal wound complications were seen in 63% (87) of the patients after CAPE compared to 64.9% (37) of the patients after ELAPE. There was no perineal herniation or </span>wound dehiscence following ELAPE, whereas these complications occurred in 1 and 5 patients respectively after CAPE. Similarly, the incidence of reoperations was 8% in CAPE as compared to 5.4% in ELAPE although not statistically significant. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. Hence, in our experience, perineal wound complications were similar in the Extralevator approach to APE (ELAPE) as compared to conventional APE (CAPE) for </span></span></span>rectal adenocarcinoma.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38278,"journal":{"name":"Wound Medicine","volume":"29 ","pages":"Article 100184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.wndm.2020.100184","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perineal Wound Outcomes after Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Adenocarcinoma- A Tertiary Care Centre Experience\",\"authors\":\"Royson Dsouza,&nbsp;Gigi Varghese,&nbsp;Rohin Mittal,&nbsp;Mark Ranjan Jesudason\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wndm.2020.100184\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>Extralevator Abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer<span><span> results in a large perineal defect, often requiring reconstruction by a biological or absorbable mesh or a flap as compared to conventional Abdominoperineal excision (CAPE). Although there are indications for oncological superiority with ELAPE, the incidence of wound-related complications is postulated to be higher when compared to CAPE due to the removal of more amount of tissue around the anorectum. On the other hand, the incidence of inadvertent rectal tube perforation during dissection is lesser in ELAPE and hence perineal wound breakdown and infection are postulated to be lesser in some other studies. We conducted a retrospective study in the department of colorectal surgery, Christian Medical College; Vellore from 2011 to 2017 to compare the perineal wound-related complications following CAPE and ELAPE. The data were retrieved from the prospectively maintained computerized inpatient and out-patient follow up records and comparisons were made in terms of incidence of perineal wound outcomes, need for </span>reoperations<span><span> and duration of hospital stay. A total of 138 patients underwent CAPE and 57 patients underwent ELAPE over a period of 7 years. There was no statistical difference in baseline characteristics and patients who underwent neo-adjuvant chemoradiation between the two groups. Perineal wound complications were seen in 63% (87) of the patients after CAPE compared to 64.9% (37) of the patients after ELAPE. There was no perineal herniation or </span>wound dehiscence following ELAPE, whereas these complications occurred in 1 and 5 patients respectively after CAPE. Similarly, the incidence of reoperations was 8% in CAPE as compared to 5.4% in ELAPE although not statistically significant. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. Hence, in our experience, perineal wound complications were similar in the Extralevator approach to APE (ELAPE) as compared to conventional APE (CAPE) for </span></span></span>rectal adenocarcinoma.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38278,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wound Medicine\",\"volume\":\"29 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100184\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.wndm.2020.100184\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wound Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213909520300082\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213909520300082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

腹外展阴部切除(ELAPE)治疗低位直肠癌会导致大面积的会阴缺损,与传统的腹外展阴部切除(CAPE)相比,通常需要生物或可吸收网状物或皮瓣重建。尽管有迹象表明ELAPE具有肿瘤优势,但由于切除肛肠周围更多的组织,与CAPE相比,伤口相关并发症的发生率被认为更高。另一方面,在ELAPE中,解剖过程中无意的直肠管穿孔的发生率较低,因此在其他一些研究中,会阴伤口破裂和感染的发生率也较低。我们在基督教医学院结直肠外科进行了回顾性研究;从2011年到2017年,比较CAPE和ELAPE后会阴伤口相关并发症。数据来源于前瞻性维护的计算机化住院和门诊随访记录,并比较会阴伤口的发生率、再次手术的需要和住院时间。在7年的时间里,共有138例患者接受了CAPE, 57例患者接受了ELAPE。两组在基线特征和接受新辅助放化疗的患者方面无统计学差异。CAPE术后会阴部创面并发症发生率为63%(87例),而ELAPE术后为64.9%(37例)。术后无会阴疝和创面裂开,术后分别有1例和5例出现上述并发症。同样,CAPE的再手术发生率为8%,而ELAPE的再手术发生率为5.4%,尽管没有统计学意义。住院时间没有差异。因此,根据我们的经验,与传统的APE (CAPE)相比,外提入路APE (ELAPE)治疗直肠腺癌的会阴伤口并发症相似。
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
Perineal Wound Outcomes after Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Rectal Adenocarcinoma- A Tertiary Care Centre Experience

Extralevator Abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer results in a large perineal defect, often requiring reconstruction by a biological or absorbable mesh or a flap as compared to conventional Abdominoperineal excision (CAPE). Although there are indications for oncological superiority with ELAPE, the incidence of wound-related complications is postulated to be higher when compared to CAPE due to the removal of more amount of tissue around the anorectum. On the other hand, the incidence of inadvertent rectal tube perforation during dissection is lesser in ELAPE and hence perineal wound breakdown and infection are postulated to be lesser in some other studies. We conducted a retrospective study in the department of colorectal surgery, Christian Medical College; Vellore from 2011 to 2017 to compare the perineal wound-related complications following CAPE and ELAPE. The data were retrieved from the prospectively maintained computerized inpatient and out-patient follow up records and comparisons were made in terms of incidence of perineal wound outcomes, need for reoperations and duration of hospital stay. A total of 138 patients underwent CAPE and 57 patients underwent ELAPE over a period of 7 years. There was no statistical difference in baseline characteristics and patients who underwent neo-adjuvant chemoradiation between the two groups. Perineal wound complications were seen in 63% (87) of the patients after CAPE compared to 64.9% (37) of the patients after ELAPE. There was no perineal herniation or wound dehiscence following ELAPE, whereas these complications occurred in 1 and 5 patients respectively after CAPE. Similarly, the incidence of reoperations was 8% in CAPE as compared to 5.4% in ELAPE although not statistically significant. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. Hence, in our experience, perineal wound complications were similar in the Extralevator approach to APE (ELAPE) as compared to conventional APE (CAPE) for rectal adenocarcinoma.

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
Wound Medicine
Wound Medicine Medicine-Surgery
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Healing potential of Caiman yacare (Daudin, 1802) visceral fat oil Fibrin sealant for split-thickness skin graft fixation in burn wounds - An ancillary postulated role in scar modulation Graphene-based materials in drug delivery and growth factor release: A critical review Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membranes accelerate open wound healing better than amniotic membranes: A histological study on the proliferation phase Honey based treatment strategies for infected wounds and burns: A systematic review of recent pre-clinical research
×
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