4.4 Article

Radiation-induced rectovaginal fistulas in locally advanced gynaecological malignancies-new patients, old problem?

期刊

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 402, 期 7, 页码 1079-1088

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-016-1539-4

关键词

Rectovaginal fistula; Diverting stoma; Radiation therapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Radiation-induced rectovaginal fistula (RI-RVF) is a chronic and serious condition with a significant influence on quality of life. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of surgical treatment of rectovaginal fistulas of patients previously undergoing radiotherapy. Fifty patients treated in the Gynaecological Radiotherapy Unit for gynaecologic malignancy and in the Department of General and Colorectal Surgery for RI-RVF between 2003 and 2013 were enrolled into a prospectively maintained database and underwent regular follow-up examinations in an outpatient clinic, during which surgical outcomes were assessed. Median age was 60 years (range 40-84 years). Cervical cancer was the most common cause of radiotherapy. Median time of fistula development after radiotherapy was 20 months (range 5-240 months). In 48 (96%) patients, only faecal diversion could be performed, while two patients underwent rectal resection. The fistula healed in six patients. Factors that correlated with fistula healing were a distance from the anal verge above 7 cm (p = 0.007 OR 18 95%CI 2.2609-14.3062) and creation of loop ileostomy (p = 0.08 OR 17 95%CI 1.2818-23.9701), whereas a prolonged course of radiotherapy of more than 6 weeks (p = 0.047) correlated negatively. In multivariate analysis, only distance from the anal verge remained significant (p = 0.031 OR 2.35 95%CI 1.0422-5.2924). The treatment of radiation-induced rectovaginal fistulas needs to be tailored individually to each patient. Faecal diversion remains the simplest and safest method of treating RI-RVF, especially in the group of patients who cannot undergo complicated surgical procedures, and offers acceptable quality of life.

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

4.4
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