4.5 Article

Preservation of the superior rectal artery: influence of surgical technique on anastomotic healing and postoperative morbidity in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 955-960

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-017-2792-x

关键词

Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy; Diverticular disease; High tie; Low tie; Superior rectal artery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the impact of superior rectal artery (SRA) sparing technique on anastomotic leakage in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease. A retrospective multicenter analysis of all patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease between 2002 and 2015 was conducted. Data were recorded in three hospitals: University Hospital Regensburg, Marienhospital Gelsenkirchen, and Stadtisches Klinikum Munchen Bogenhausen. The SRA was resected between 2002 and 2005. Since 2005, the artery was preserved in most cases. Two hundred sixty-seven patients were included. One hundred sixty patients presented with complicated diverticulitis (60%). The SRA was resected in 102 patients (group 1) and preserved in 157 patients (group 2, no data in eight cases). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7% of patients in group 1 and 1.9% of patients in group 2 (p = 0.053). Duration of surgery was significantly shorter (157 vs. 183 min, p < 0.001) in group 2 patients. Length of hospital stay was without significant difference (group 1 8.2 days; group 2 8.3 days; p = 0.83). The conversion rate was higher in group 2 patients; however, the difference was not statistically significant (9 vs. 3%, p = 0.07). There was no significant difference between both groups regarding intraoperative complications and overall complication rate. The length of the resected specimen (19 vs. 21 cm, p = 0.001) was significantly shorter in group 2 patients. Preservation of the SRA seems to be associated with favorable outcome in patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular 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

4.5
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