3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Ileoanal pouch operation -: Long-term outcome with or without diverting ileostomy

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 135, 期 4, 页码 463-465

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.135.4.463

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothesis: Avoiding a diverting ileostomy does not influence the long-term overall morbidity and functional outcome of patients after ileoanal pouch operation (IAP). Design: All patients undergoing IAP were prospectively entered into a database, and those undergoing operation from October 1, 1989, through January 31, 1996, were contacted by mail questionnaire. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: One hundred thirty unselected sequential patients. Interventions: The IAP was completed by a stapled method without diverting ileostomy, provided the patient agreed, and there were no other complicating factors. Main Outcome Measures: Need for reoperation, fecal leakage, pouch frequency, ability to defer evacuation, pouchitis, and overall quality of life. Results: Of 102 patients (78.5%) who initially underwent IAP without diverting ileostomy, 10 (9.8%) developed an anastomotic leak and required a diverting ileostomy. Additional surgery was required in 12 (9.2%) of the 130 patients for bowel obstruction and in 3 (2.3%;,) for pouch excision. Two patients died of unrelated causes, leaving 125 functioning pouches (96.2%). Questionnaires were completed in 1 11 (88.8%) of the 125; 75 patients (67.6%) reported perfect continence for gas and stool, 10 patients (9.0%), regular nighttime leakage, and 24 patients (21.6%)1 occasional fiscal leakage. Pouch evacuation frequency (+/-SD) per 24 hours was 7.8 +/- 2.4 (range, 4-12), and 95.5% of patients could defer pouch evacuation. Of the 111 patients, 42.3% reported pouchitis, with 7.2% receiving long-term antibiotic therapy. Of the patients, 74.8%;, reported total satisfaction, and 84.7% regarded themselves as bring in perfect health. Conclusion:: Long-term outcome after IAP remains favorable with or without diverting ileostomy.

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

3.9
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