4.4 Article

Laparoscopic treatment of rectal prolapse:: experience gained in a prospective multicenter study

期刊

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 387, 期 3-4, 页码 130-137

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-002-0305-y

关键词

rectal prolapse; laparoscopic colorectal surgery; multicenter study

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We report the findings of a prospective multicenter observational study carried out by the Study Group for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery on patients undergoing laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal prolapse. The study investigated the safety of various laparoscopic techniques in terms of perioperative and postoperative general and technique-specific complications and compared the results with those reported for open surgery in this area. Methods: Of the 150 patients undergoing laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery for rectal prolapse 124 received rectopexy combined with resection and 26 rectopexy alone. In 85 patients a mesh was employed during rectopexy. The conversion rate was 5.3%. Results: Perioperative complications (21 surgical and 35 general perioperative) were recorded in 37 patients (24.7%). The reoperation rate was 5.3% (bleeding 2, anastomotic leak 2, ileus 4). No procedure-specific perioperative complications were observed. In particular, reduced surgical trauma led to fewer severe postoperative complications such as cardiopulmonary problems (3.3%). Conclusions: The techniques of conventional prolapse surgery can readily be translated to the laparoscopic modality, since oncological criteria do not have to be considered. The usually elderly patients in this group benefit to a particular degree from the known advantages associated with reduced surgical trauma. Perioperative morbidity is determined largely by the surgeon's experience. We therefore believe that rectal prolapse is a suitable indication for the minimally invasive modality in the hands of trained surgeons.

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

4.4
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