A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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

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

Langenbecks Arch Surg

Department of Surgery and Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hanover Hospital, Roesebeckstrasse 15 (Siloah), 30449 Hanover, Germany.

Published: July 2002

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-002-0305-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rectal prolapse
16
prospective multicenter
8
colorectal surgery
8
patients undergoing
8
undergoing laparoscopic
8
laparoscopic laparoscopic-assisted
8
surgery rectal
8
perioperative complications
8
reduced surgical
8
surgical trauma
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!