4.7 Article

Long-term outcome of perineal rectosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 78-82

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.06.040

关键词

Rectal prolapse; Procidentia; Altemeier procedure; Perineal rectosigmoidectomy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Rectal prolapse is a disabling condition that often affects older patients with multiple comorbidities making complex surgeries impossible to perform. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier procedure) for rectal prolapse from January 1999 to March 2015 was performed in a Reference Hospital, being evaluated complications and surgery recurrence. Results: Thirty-six Altemeier procedures were performed in 33 patients during the study. Twenty-five (76.8%) were women and the mean age was 67 (range 31-91) years. The mean duration of rectal prolapse symptoms was 7.8 years; other complaints were: pain, bleeding, mucus discharge, constipation and fecal incontinence. The mean operative time was 134.8 min and the blood loss was little. The mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 3.9 days. There was no mortality. Early postoperative complications occurred in 3 (9.1%). Patients: an acute pulmonary edema, an urinary infection and a surgical site infection with partial anastomotic leak. This patient developed anastomotic stenosis requiring dilatation. The recurrence rate was 26.7% (8 patients), with a mean follow-up of 50 months, and three of them were treated with repeat Altemeier repair. Many patients complain of some degree of fecal incontinence, but all reported improvement in their quality of life after surgery. Conclusion: The Altemeier procedure showed low morbidity but it was associated with significant recurrence rate. The same procedure can be repeated in case of recurrence with satisfactory results. (C) 2016 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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