Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 143
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 994
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3134
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background And Objectives: Rectal prolapse is often repaired laparoscopically, frequently with the use of reinforcement material. Both synthetic and biologically derived materials reduce recurrence rate compared to primary suture repair. Synthetic mesh introduces potential complications such as mesh erosion, fibrosis, and infection. Urinary bladder matrix (UBM) represents a biologically derived material for reinforcement of rectal prolapse repair with the potential to improve durability without risks of synthetic materials. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness, durability, and functional result of laparoscopic rectopexy using urinary bladder matrix xenograft reinforcement at three years follow up.
Methods: The 20 cases presented describe rectal prolapse repair by means of laparoscopic rectopexy with presacral UBM reinforcement. Patients were followed up for an average of 3 years and assessed with interviews, physical examination, manometry, and the fecal incontinence severity index (FISI).
Results: Each repair was completed laparoscopically. UBM exhibited favorable handling characteristics when sutured to the sacrum and the lateral rectal walls. One patient underwent laparoscopic drainage of a postoperative abscess; no other complications occurred. In 3 years of follow-up, there have been no full-thickness recurrences, erosions, reoperations, or long-term complications. Two patients exhibited a small degree of mucosal prolapse on follow-up physical examination that did not require surgery. Three-year FISI scores averaged 8 (range, 0-33 of a possible 61), indicating low fecal incontinence symptomatology. Follow-up anorectal manometry was performed in 9 patients, showing mixed results.
Conclusion: Surgeons may safely use laparoscopic rectopexy with UBM reinforcement for repair of rectal prolapses. In this series, repairs with UBM grafts have been durable at 3-year follow-up and may be an alternative to synthetic mesh reinforcement of rectal prolapse repairs. Future studies may compare the advantages and cost-effectiveness of reinforcement materials for rectal prolapse repair.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5371515 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00106 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!