Journals / Dicle Tıp Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 1

Abdominal and perineal approaches in the surgical treatment of rectal prolapse

Rektal prolapsus cerrahi tedavisinde abdominal ve perineal yaklaşımlar

Pages
83–88
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Results of abdominal and perineal approaches were similar, when they were applied with taking into account the risk factors for surgical treatment, findings of the patients and the surgeon’s experience.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Rectal prolapse is a disease, which is an important cause of social and functional problems and has a continuing debate about the ideal surgical treatment of itself.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: Between 2006-2011, the records of 21 patients undergoing surgery with the diagnosis of rectal prolapse were reviewed, retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Results of abdominal and perineal approaches were similar, when they were applied with taking into account the risk factors for surgical treatment, findings of the patients and the surgeon’s experience.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2006-2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introduction: Rectal prolapse is a disease, which is an important cause of social and functional problems and has a continuing debate about the ideal surgical treatment of itself. In this study, we aimed to investigate the abdominal and perineal approaches with early and late postoperative result in the patients undergoing surgery for rectal prolapse. Materials and methods: Between 2006-2011, the records of 21 patients undergoing surgery with the diagnosis of rectal prolapse were reviewed, retrospectively. The demographic and physical examination findings, surgical procedures, early and late postoperative complications, recurrence and mortality rates were recorded. Results: The median age was 43 years and female/male ratio was 1.63/1. The most common presenting complaint was gas control failure and often wetting with mucus. Stage 1 and stage 3 rectal prolapses was detected in 19% and 81% of the patients, respectively. The most common surgical procedure was Notaras (54%). Early postoperative complications were seen in 14.3% of the patients. There were no postoperative recurrence, mortality and complication requiring re-exploration. Advanced age and shorter duration of hospital stay were determined and often performed under regional anesthesia in the patients undergoing perineal approach. No statistical differences were observed in terms of early postoperative complications and recurrence. Conclusion: Results of abdominal and perineal approaches were similar, when they were applied with taking into account the risk factors for surgical treatment, findings of the patients and the surgeon’s experience.

Özet

Giriş: Rektal prolapsus, sosyal ve fonksiyonel problemlere neden olan ve ideal cerrahi yöntem konusunda tartışmaların devam ettiği bir hastalıktır. Bu çalışmada rektal prolapsus nedeniyle cerrahi tedavi uygulanan hastalarımızda abdominal ve perineal yaklaşımların postoperatif erken ve geç dönem sonuçlarla beraber araştırılması amaçlandı. Gereç ve yöntem: 2006-2011 yılları arasında rektal prolapsus tanısıyla cerrahi tedavi uygulanan 21 hastanın kayıtları retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Hastalara ait demografik ve fizik muayene bulguları, uygulanan cerrahi yöntemler, postoperatif erken ve geç dönemde gelişen komplikasyonlar, nüks ve mortalite oranları kaydedildi. Bulgular: Hastaların medyan yaş 43 olup, kadın/erkek oranı 1.63/1 idi. En sık başvuru şikayeti gaz kontrolünde bozukluk ve sıklıkla mukusla ıslanma idi. Fizik muayenede hastaların %19unda evre 1 ve %81inde evre 3 rektal prolapsus saptandı. En sık uygulanan cerrahi yöntem Notarastı (%52.4). Hastaların % 14.3ünde postoperatif erken dönemde komplikasyon gelişti. Postoperatif mortalite, nüks ve reeksplorasyon gerektiren bir komplikasyon gözlenmedi. Perineal yaklaşım uygulanan hastalarda yaş daha ileri ve hastanede yatış süresi daha kısaydı ve sıklıkla rejyonel anestezi altında uygulandı. Postoperatif erken komplikasyonlar ve nüks gelişimi açısından istatistiksel farklılık izlenmedi. Sonuç: Cerrahi tedavi açısından risk faktörleri, hastaya ait bulgular ve cerrahın tecrübesi göz önünde bulundurularak uygulanacak abdominal veya perineal yaklaşımlara ait sonuçlar benzerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAPAN, M., ÖNDER, A., POLAT, S., ALİOSMANOĞLU, İ., TAŞKESEN, F., ARIKANOĞLU, Z., GÜL, M., TAÇYILDIZ, İ. (2012). Abdominal and perineal approaches in the surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. Dicle Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 1, 83–88. https://ajindex.com/articles/349117

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Barbieri S, Roviaro G. Impact of new technologies on the clinical and functional outcome of Altemeier’s Procedure: A randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49(5): 652-60
  2. Karulf RE, Madoff RD, Goldberg SM. Rectal prolapse. Curr Probl Surg 2001; 38(10): 771-832
  3. Riansuwan W, Hull TL, Bast J, Hammel JP, Church JM. Comparison of perineal operations with abdominal operations for full-thickness rectal prolapse. World J Surg 2010; 34(5): 1116–22
  4. Akcan A, Sözüer E, Akyıldız H, et al. Tam kat rektal prolapsus cerrahi tedavisinde rektopeksi ve rektopeksi ile birlikte sigmoid rezeksiyonun karşılaştırılması. Ulusal Cerrahi Dergisi 2007; 23(2): 54-7
  5. Michalopoulos A, Papadopoulos VN, Panidis S, et al. Surgical management of rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 2011; 15(1): 25–8
  6. Hoel AT, Skarstein A, Ovrebo KK. Prolapse of the rectum, long-term results of surgical treatment. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24(2): 201–7
  7. Altemeier WA, Culbertson WR, Schowegerdt C, Hunt S. Nineteen years experience with the one stage perineal repair of rectal prolapse. Ann Surg 1971; 173(6): 993-1006
  8. Boutsis C, Ellis H. The Ivalon sponge wrap operation for rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 1974; 17(1): 21-37
  9. Çalıskan C, Korkut AM, Fırat Ö, Akgün E, Osmanoğlu H. Rectal prolapse experience: 68 cases in 27 years. Ege Journal of Medicine 2008; 47(1): 29-34
  10. Frykman HM. Abdominal proctopexy and primary sigmoid resection for rectal procidentia. Am J Surg 1955; 90(5): 780–9
  11. Gordon PH. In: Gordon PH, Nivatvongs S, eds. Principles and Practice of Surgery for the Colon, Rectum, and Anus, 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing Inc, 1999: 575–717
  12. Tobin SA, Scott IH. Delorme operation for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 1994; 81(11): 1681–4
  13. Longo A. Treatment of hemorrhoid disease by reduction of mucosa and hemorrhoidal prolapse with a circular suturing device: a new procedure. In: Proceedings of 6th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Rome, Italy, 1998: 777–84
  14. Madiba TE, Baig MK, Wexner SD. Surgical Management of Rectal Prolapse. Arch Surg 2005; 140(1): 63-73 15. Welton ML. Anorectum. In: Way LW, Doherty GM, eds. Current Surgical Diagnosis and Treatment, 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003; 32: 764-6
  15. Özkan S, Özkan FC, Sönmez H, Ergenoglu O, Kekeç Y. Rektal prolapsus tamiri ve fonksiyonel sonuçları. Çagdaş Cerrahi Dergisi 2000; 14: 170-74
  16. Corman ML, Aliıson SI, Kuehne JP. Rectal Prolapse. Solitar