4.7 Article

Long-term Outcome After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy An Observational Study of 919 Consecutive Patients

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 262, 期 5, 页码 742-748

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001401

关键词

laparoscopic ventral rectopexy; mesh-related complications; mesh erosion; rectal prolapse; recurrence

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:This multicenter study aims to assess long-term functional outcome, early and late (mesh-related) complications, and recurrences after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) for rectal prolapse syndromes in a large cohort of consecutive patients.Background:Long-term outcome data for prolapse repair are rare. A high incidence of mesh-related problems has been noted after transvaginal approaches using nonresorbable meshes.Methods:All patients treated with LVR at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands and the University Hospital Leuven, Belgium between January 1999 and March 2013 were enrolled in this study. All data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for recurrences and mesh-related problems.Results:919 consecutive patients (869 women; 50 men) underwent LVR. A 10-year recurrence rate of 8.2% (95% confidence interval, 3.7-12.7) for external rectal prolapse repair was noted. Mesh-related complications were recorded in 18 patients (4.6%), of which mesh erosion to the vagina occurred in 7 patients (1.3%). In 5 of these patients, LVR was combined with a perineotomy. Both rates of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) after LVR compared to the preoperative incidence (11.1% vs 37.5% for incontinence and 15.6% vs 54.0% for constipation).Conclusions:LVR is safe and effective for the treatment of different rectal prolapse syndromes. Long-term recurrence rates are in line with classic types of mesh rectopexy and occurrence of mesh-related complications is rare.

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