4.1 Article

Evolution in the management of Hirschsprung's disease in the UK and Ireland: a national survey of practice revisited

期刊

出版社

ROYAL COLL SURGEONS ENGLAND
DOI: 10.1308/003588410X12771863936846

关键词

Hirschsprung disease; Diagnosis; Operative procedures; Laparoscopy; Surgical stomas

类别

资金

  1. BAPS Research and Clinical Outcomes Committee

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION The management of Hirschsprung's disease continues to evolve. This questionnaire survey aimed to determine current surgical management strategies for Hirschsprung's disease in Britain. SUBJECTS AND METHODS The survey was sent electronically to all British paediatric surgeons. Initial questions explored individual experience and regional service provision. Additional questions, reserved for surgeons who perform definitive Hirschsprung's disease surgery, addressed specific clinical scenarios. RESULTS Surveys were sent to 142 surgeons yielding 85 responses. After exclusions, 64 surveys from 21 centres were analysed. Forty-seven respondents worked in centres with designated 'Hirschsprung's disease surgeons'. Forty respondents perform definitive Hirschsprung's disease surgery. In a well neonate with left-sided Hirschsprung's disease, 34 of 40 surgeons favour primary pull-through following bowel decompression with rectal washouts; 35 of 40 surgeons aim to perform definitive surgery at less than 3 months of age, with 17 favouring laparoscopic-assisted Soave-Boley and 15 favouring an open Duhamel pull-through. Of the 40 surgeons, 36 use a staged approach to right-sided/total colonic Hirschsprung's disease with 23 favouring a Duhamel or Long Duhamel pull-through. CONCLUSIONS The primary pull-through, using an open Duhamel or laparoscopic-assisted Soave-Boley technique, during the first 3 months of life, has become the operative strategy of choice in rectosigmoid Hirschsprung's disease in Britain. Marked variation in practice remains for right-sided Hirschsprung's disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据