4.5 Article

Endo-sponge therapy for management of anastomotic leakages after colorectal surgery: A case series and review of literature

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 47, 期 6, 页码 465-469

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2015.02.007

关键词

Anastomotic leakage; Colon surgery; Endoscopic treatment; Endo-sponge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Endo-sponge treatment is a novel approach to manage selected patients with anastomotic leakage following colorectal surgery. However, the available data are still scanty. Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the endo-sponge therapy in a large series, and to perform a review of the current evidence concerning such a treatment. Methods: Consecutive patients diagnosed with partial colonic anastomotic leakage managed with endo-sponge placement were enrolled. The endo-sponge system was changed every 48-72 h as outpatient, until to cavity closure. Literature review was performed for pooled-data analysis. Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled, including 13 (52%) with diverting ileostomy. Following endo-sponge applications (median sessions: 9, range: 1-39; median treatment duration: 4 weeks, range: 1-32), a complete healing was achieved in 22 (88%) patients. Three (12%) patients developed a major complication (1 uretheric fistula, 1 ileal fistula, and 1 pararectal abscess), all successfully treated by surgery. Ileostomy closure was achieved in 11 (84.6%) patients. No mortality related to the procedure was observed. Overall, 174 patients treated with endo-sponge were reported in literature. By considering data of the larger 7 studies, a complete healing of presacral cavity was achieved in 131 (94.3%) out of 149 patients. Conclusions: Our relatively large series of patients confirmed the efficacy, tolerability, and an acceptably low complication rate of endo-sponge therapy for colorectal anastomosis leakage treatment. (C) 2015 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. 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

4.5
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