4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Functional outcome after transperineal rectocele repair with porcine dermal collagen implant

期刊

DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 1422-1427

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10350-007-0219-4

关键词

rectoccle; transperineal; collagen mesh

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: Symptomatic rectocele results in obstructed defecation and constipation. Surgical repair may provide symptomatic relief. This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of transperineal rectocele repair with porcine dermal collagen (Permacol (R)). METHODS: Ten females with symptomatic rectocele had a transperineal repair using Permacol (R). Median age was 51 (range, 33-71) years. Patients were followed with detailed interviews at a median time of 9 (range, 5-16) months. Objective preoperative and postoperative assessment was by outcomes for five symptoms: constipation, excessive straining, incomplete evacuation, vaginal bulging, and vaginal digitations; (always, usually, occasionally, never), and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 questionnaires. Subjective outcomes were assessed as excellent, good, moderate, and poor. RESULTS: All patients had an improvement in two or more symptoms and 70 percent of patients in three or more symptoms. Postoperatively 80 percent reported an improvement in excessive straining (P=0.0078) and in incomplete evacuation (P=0.0078); 70 percent reported an improvement in vaginal bulging (P=0.0156). Improvements in vaginal digitations and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 scores were not statistically significant. Subjective outcomes were reported as excellent or good by 80 percent of patients. No patients had rectal perforation or infection, and no Permacol (R) has been removed. CONCLUSIONS: Rectocele repair with Permacol (R) by the transperineal approach is a safe technique that avoids some of the complications associated with synthetic mesh use. Objective and subjective results are excellent in the majority of patients.

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