4.6 Article

Laparoscopic segmental colorectal resection for endometriosis: limits and complications

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-006-9160-1

关键词

bowel endometriosis; colorectal endometriosis; colorectal resection; deep pelvic endometriosis; endometriosis; Laparoscopy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Deep pelvic endometriosis with colorectal involvement is a complex disorder often requiring segmental bowel resection. This study investigated the limits and complications of laparoscopic segmental colorectal resection. Methods: Laparoscopic segmental colorectal resection was performed for 71 women with bowel endometriosis. Intra-and postoperative complications were evaluated, together with symptom outcomes, by means of questionnaires completed before and after surgery. Surgical procedures and complications were compared between the first part of the study (40 cases, previously published) and the second part (31 cases). Results: Of the 71 women, 64 (90%) underwent laparoscopic segmental colorectal resection, with 7 requiring laparoconversion. Major complications occurred in nine cases (12.6%), six with rectovaginal fistulae and three with pelvic abscesses. The mean operating time decreased significantly during the study (p < 0.05). The mean follow-up period after colorectal resection was 24.4 +/- 2.2 months. No differences in the rates of laparoconversion or complications were observed between the two periods, whereas major associated surgical procedures were more frequent during the second period. Dysmenorrhea (p < 0.0001), dyspareunia (p = 0.0001), pain at defecation (p = 0.0004), bowel movement pain or cramping (p < 0.0001), lower back pain (p < 0.0001), and asthenia (p < 0.0001) were improved after the operation, with no difference between the study periods. Conclusion: This large series confirms the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic segmental colorectal resection. However, women must be informed of the risk for potentially severe complications.

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

4.6
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