4.3 Article

Long-term outcome after intestinal resection for Crohn's disease

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 41, 期 10, 页码 1204-1208

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/00365520600731018

关键词

Crohn's disease; intestinal resection; outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To assess the need for intestinal repeat resection for recurrence of Crohn's disease in patients observed for more than 20 years after the first resection. Material and methods. Data were gathered retrospectively from the medical records of 53 (28 F) consecutive patients with Crohn's disease from May 1954 to December 2002. Median age at first intestinal resection was 24.5 (range 13-65) years, and median observation time thereafter was 26.5 (20.1-48.6) years. Disease location and behaviour were defined according to the Vienna classification. Results. The 53 patients had an average 2.7 and a median 2 intestinal resections. Out of 144 intestinal resections (77.1%) 111 were performed during the first three operations; no alterations in distribution of ileal, ileocolic and colic resections were found. From the first to the third operation there was an increase in penetrating disease from 15% to 39% (p=0.046) concomitant with a decrease in stricturing disease from 72% to 44% (p=0.048) of the patients. There was also a corresponding decrease in ileocolic disease from 45% to 5% (p=0.003) and a tendency towards an increase in ileal disease from 38% to 67%. One patient died (1.8%) from rectosigmoid perforation after the third resectional operation. Six patients needed reoperation (11.3%) for ileus, anastomotic bleeding, rectosigmoidal perforation and abdominal pain. Thirty-four patients (64.2%) needed intestinal repeat resection (median 8.3 years) during 25.3 years after the first repeat resection. Conclusions. This study indicates a diminution of Crohn's disease activity with time, as demonstrated by no need for intestinal repeat resection more than 25 years after the first resection.

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

4.3
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