Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Dis Colon Rectum ; 58(8): 799-807, 2015 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26163960

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding the potential risk of mesh complications after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the risk of mesh and nonmesh morbidity after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy and to compare the safety of synthetic meshes with biological grafts. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review. SETTINGS: The study used data collated from prospective pelvic floor databases in 5 centers (3 in the United Kingdom, 1 in Australia, and 1 in Italy). PATIENTS: All of the patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy over a 14-year period (1999-2013) at these centers were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mesh morbidity, classified as vaginal erosion, rectal erosion, rectovaginal fistula, or perineal erosion. Secondary outcomes were nonmesh morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 2203 patients underwent surgery; 1764 (80.1%) used synthetic mesh and 439 (19.9%) used biological grafts. There were 2 postoperative deaths (0.1%). Forty-five patients (2.0%) had mesh erosion, including 20 vaginal, 17 rectal, 7 rectovaginal fistula, and 1 perineal. Twenty-three patients (51.1%) required treatment for minor erosion morbidity (local excision of stitch/exposed mesh), and 18 patients (40.0%) were treated for major erosion morbidity (12 laparoscopic mesh removal, 3 mesh removal plus colostomy, and 3 anterior resection). Erosion occurred in 2.4% of synthetic meshes and 0.7% of biological meshes. The median time to erosion was 23 months. Nonmesh complications occurred in 11.1% of patients. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study including patients with minimal follow-up. The study was unable to determine whether patients will develop future erosions, currently have asymptomatic erosions, or have been treated in other institutions for erosions. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is a safe operation. Mesh erosion rates are 2% and occasionally require resectional surgery that might be reduced by the use of biological graft. An international ventral mesh registry is recommended to monitor mesh problems and to assess whether type of mesh has any impact on functional outcomes or the need for revisional surgery for nonerosion problems.


Asunto(s)
Prolapso Rectal/cirugía , Rectocele/cirugía , Fístula Rectovaginal/etiología , Recto/cirugía , Mallas Quirúrgicas/efectos adversos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Laparoscopía , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Enfermedades del Recto/etiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Enfermedades Vaginales/etiología , Adulto Joven
2.
Dis Colon Rectum ; 50(9): 1422-7, 2007 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17429710

RESUMEN

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). METHODS: Ten females with symptomatic rectocele had a transperineal repair using Permacol. 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 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.


Asunto(s)
Materiales Biocompatibles , Colágeno , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo/métodos , Implantación de Prótesis/instrumentación , Rectocele/cirugía , Adulto , Anciano , Animales , Estreñimiento/etiología , Estreñimiento/fisiopatología , Estreñimiento/cirugía , Defecación/fisiología , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Peritoneo , Rectocele/complicaciones , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Factores de Tiempo , Trasplante Heterólogo , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA