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

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Dis Colon Rectum ; 67(9): 1210-1216, 2024 Sep 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38830268

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses confirm that the use of a prophylactic mesh does not significantly reduce the parastomal hernia rate. Data about the benefits of these meshes concerning the symptoms of parastomal hernia are lacking in the existing literature. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a post hoc analysis of the patients presenting parastomal hernia from the GRECCAR 7 (Groupe de recherche sur la chirurgie du cancer du rectum) randomized clinical trials cohort on whether the presence or the absence of the mesh influenced the symptoms, the quality of life, and complications of patients with parastomal hernias. DESIGN: We studied the parastomal hernia-related symptoms among the 2 groups of the GRECCAR 7 randomized clinical trial, with or without prophylactic mesh at the time of the index surgery. SETTINGS: Data were retrospectively extracted and analyzed from the GRECCAR 7 database. PATIENTS: Patients diagnosed with a parastomal hernia during the 2 years of the GRECCAR 7 study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Several prospectively collected data about the symptoms were studied among this population. We also studied the average interval between parastomal hernia repair surgery and both index surgery and diagnosis of parastomal hernia. RESULTS: Among the 199 patients included in the GRECCAR study, 36 patients (35.6%) in the nonmesh group and 33 patients (33.7%) in the mesh group were diagnosed with clinical and/or radiological parastomal hernia at 2-year follow-up, without a statistically significant difference ( p = 0.89). None of the studied symptoms showed any statistically significant difference between the groups. LIMITATIONS: This study relies on a relatively small number of patients, and although data were prospectively collected, we lacked some details about the categorization of parastomal hernias. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the use of a prosthetic mesh in a sublay position to prevent parastomal hernia in terminal end colostomy patients should no longer be recommended. See Video Abstract . EFECTO DE LA MALLA PREVENTIVA RETROMUSCULAR PARA COLOSTOMA TERMINAL CON RESPECTO A LOS SNTOMAS Y LA CALIDAD DE VIDA EN PACIENTES CON HERNIA PARAESTOMAL UN ANLISIS POSTHOC DE LA COHORTE GRECCAR: ANTECEDENTES:Los recientes metaanálisis y ensayos clínicos aleatorizados confirman que el uso de una malla profiláctica no reduce significativamente la tasa de hernia paraestomal. En la literatura existente faltan datos sobre los beneficios de estas mallas en relación con los síntomas de la hernia paraestomal.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue realizar un análisis post-hoc de los pacientes que presentaron hernia paraestomal de la cohorte de 7 ensayos clínicos aleatorizados GRECCAR sobre si la presencia o ausencia de la malla influyó en los síntomas, la calidad de vida y las complicaciones de los pacientes con hernias paraestomales.DISEÑO:Estudiamos los síntomas relacionados con la hernia paraestomal entre los dos grupos del ensayo clínico aleatorizado GRECCAR 7, con o sin malla profiláctica en el momento de la cirugía índice.AJUSTES:Los datos fueron extraídos y analizados de manera retrospectiva de la base de datos GRECCAR 7.PACIENTES:Pacientes diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal durante los dos años del estudio GRECCAR 7.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se estudiaron varios datos recopilados de manera prospectiva sobre los síntomas en esta población. También estudiamos el intervalo promedio entre la cirugía reparadora de la hernia paraestomal así como también la cirugía índice como el diagnóstico de la hernia paraestomal.RESULTADOS:De entre los 199 pacientes incluidos en el estudio GRECCAR, 36 pacientes (35,6%) fueron diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal de manera clínica y/o radiológica en el grupo sin malla a los 2 años de seguimiento y 33 (33,7%) en el grupo con malla, sin diferencia estadísticamente significativa ( p = 0,89). Ninguno de los síntomas estudiados mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se basa en un número relativamente pequeño de pacientes y, aunque los datos fueron recopilados de forma prospectiva, nos faltaron algunos detalles sobre la categorización de las hernias paraestomales.CONCLUSIONES:Creemos que ya no se debe recomendar el uso de una malla protésica en posición retromuscular para prevenir la hernia paraestomal en pacientes con colostomía terminal. (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).


Assuntos
Colostomia , Qualidade de Vida , Telas Cirúrgicas , Humanos , Colostomia/efeitos adversos , Colostomia/métodos , Masculino , Feminino , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Hérnia Incisional/prevenção & controle , Hérnia Incisional/etiologia , Hérnia Incisional/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/prevenção & controle , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Estomas Cirúrgicos/efeitos adversos , Hérnia Ventral/prevenção & controle , Hérnia Ventral/etiologia
2.
J Visc Surg ; 161(2): 106-128, 2024 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38448363

RESUMO

AIM: Digestive stoma are frequently performed. The last French guidelines have been published twenty years ago. Our aim was to update French clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative management of digestive stoma and stoma-related complications. METHODS: A systematic literature review of French and English articles published between January 2000 and May 2022 was performed. Only digestive stoma for fecal evacuation in adults were considered. Stoma in children, urinary stoma, digestive stoma for enteral nutrition, and rare stoma (Koch, perineal) were not included. RESULTS: Guidelines include the surgical landmarks to create digestive stoma (ideal location, mucocutaneous anastomosis, utility of support rods, use of prophylactic mesh), the perioperative clinical practice guidelines (patient education, preoperative ostomy site marking, postoperative equipment, prescriptions, and follow-up), the management of early stoma-related complications (difficulties for nursing, high output, stoma necrosis, retraction, abscess and peristomal skin complications), and the management of late stoma-related complications (stoma prolapse, parastomal hernia, stoma stenosis, late stoma retraction). A level of evidence was assigned to each statement. CONCLUSION: These guidelines will be very useful in clinical practice, and allow to delete some outdated dogma.


Assuntos
Complicações Pós-Operatórias , Estomas Cirúrgicos , Humanos , França , Estomas Cirúrgicos/efeitos adversos , Adulto , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/prevenção & controle , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Colostomia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA