腹腔镜切除术后网膜成形术与盲肠移动术的比较:倾向得分匹配分析

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Mehdi Boubaddi, Audrey Eude, Arthur Marichez, Samuel Amintas, Lara Boissieras, Bertrand Celerier, Eric Rullier, Benjamin Fernandez
{"title":"腹腔镜切除术后网膜成形术与盲肠移动术的比较:倾向得分匹配分析","authors":"Mehdi Boubaddi, Audrey Eude, Arthur Marichez, Samuel Amintas, Lara Boissieras, Bertrand Celerier, Eric Rullier, Benjamin Fernandez","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03439-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the minimally invasive approach and early rehabilitation, abdominal-perineal resection (APR) remains a procedure with high morbidity, notably due to postoperative trapped bowel ileus and perineal healing complications. Several surgical techniques have been described for filling the pelvic void to prevent abscess formation and ileus by trapped bowel loop.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of our study was to compare the post APR complications for cancer of two of these techniques, omentoplasty and cecal mobilization, in a single-center study from an expert colorectal surgery center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>From 2012 to 2022, 84 patients were included, including 58 (69%) with omentoplasty and 26 (31%) with cecal mobilization. They all underwent APR at Bordeaux University Hospital Center.</p><p><strong>Settings: </strong>A propensity score was used to avoid confounding factors as far as possible. Patient and procedure characteristics were initially comparable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 30-day complication rate was significantly higher in the cecal mobilization group (53.8% vs. 5.2% p < 0.01), as was the rate of pelvic abscess (34.6% vs. 0% p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that, when feasible, omentoplasty should be considered the preferred method for pelvic reconstruction following APR.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Omentoplasty versus cecal mobilization after abdominoperineal resection: A propensity score matching analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mehdi Boubaddi, Audrey Eude, Arthur Marichez, Samuel Amintas, Lara Boissieras, Bertrand Celerier, Eric Rullier, Benjamin Fernandez\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00423-024-03439-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the minimally invasive approach and early rehabilitation, abdominal-perineal resection (APR) remains a procedure with high morbidity, notably due to postoperative trapped bowel ileus and perineal healing complications. Several surgical techniques have been described for filling the pelvic void to prevent abscess formation and ileus by trapped bowel loop.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of our study was to compare the post APR complications for cancer of two of these techniques, omentoplasty and cecal mobilization, in a single-center study from an expert colorectal surgery center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>From 2012 to 2022, 84 patients were included, including 58 (69%) with omentoplasty and 26 (31%) with cecal mobilization. They all underwent APR at Bordeaux University Hospital Center.</p><p><strong>Settings: </strong>A propensity score was used to avoid confounding factors as far as possible. Patient and procedure characteristics were initially comparable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 30-day complication rate was significantly higher in the cecal mobilization group (53.8% vs. 5.2% p < 0.01), as was the rate of pelvic abscess (34.6% vs. 0% p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that, when feasible, omentoplasty should be considered the preferred method for pelvic reconstruction following APR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03439-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03439-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管腹会阴切除术(APR)是一种微创手术,而且可以早期康复,但其发病率仍然很高,主要原因是术后肠套叠回肠和会阴愈合并发症。有几种手术方法可以填充骨盆空隙,防止脓肿形成和肠套叠回肠:我们的研究旨在通过一项来自结直肠外科专家中心的单中心研究,比较网膜成形术和盲肠移动术这两种技术的癌症 APR 术后并发症:从 2012 年到 2022 年,共纳入 84 例患者,其中 58 例(69%)采用网膜成形术,26 例(31%)采用盲肠移动术。他们都在波尔多大学医院中心接受了APR手术:采用倾向评分法尽可能避免混杂因素。患者和手术特征最初具有可比性:结果:盲肠移动组的 30 天并发症发生率明显更高(53.8% 对 5.2% p 结论:这些结果表明,在可行的情况下,盲肠移动术的并发症发生率较低:这些研究结果表明,在可行的情况下,网膜成形术应被视为 APR 术后骨盆重建的首选方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Omentoplasty versus cecal mobilization after abdominoperineal resection: A propensity score matching analysis.

Omentoplasty versus cecal mobilization after abdominoperineal resection: A propensity score matching analysis.

Background: Despite the minimally invasive approach and early rehabilitation, abdominal-perineal resection (APR) remains a procedure with high morbidity, notably due to postoperative trapped bowel ileus and perineal healing complications. Several surgical techniques have been described for filling the pelvic void to prevent abscess formation and ileus by trapped bowel loop.

Objective: The aim of our study was to compare the post APR complications for cancer of two of these techniques, omentoplasty and cecal mobilization, in a single-center study from an expert colorectal surgery center.

Patients: From 2012 to 2022, 84 patients were included, including 58 (69%) with omentoplasty and 26 (31%) with cecal mobilization. They all underwent APR at Bordeaux University Hospital Center.

Settings: A propensity score was used to avoid confounding factors as far as possible. Patient and procedure characteristics were initially comparable.

Results: The 30-day complication rate was significantly higher in the cecal mobilization group (53.8% vs. 5.2% p < 0.01), as was the rate of pelvic abscess (34.6% vs. 0% p < 0.001).

Conclusion: These findings suggest that, when feasible, omentoplasty should be considered the preferred method for pelvic reconstruction following APR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信