Suppr超能文献

直肠癌手术后吻合口漏的长期结果:内镜海绵和经肛门灌洗治疗的比较。

Long-Term Results after Anastomotic Leakage following Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Comparison of Treatment with Endo-Sponge and Transanal Irrigation.

机构信息

Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Instistutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Dig Surg. 2020;37(6):456-462. doi: 10.1159/000508935. Epub 2020 Aug 23.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate long-term results in patients from regular health care treated with endoscopic transanal closure system, that is, endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure system (EVAC) compared to transanal irrigation.

METHODS

In this retrospective, medical chart-based, observational study, we included patients with anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer from 3 Stockholm hospitals 2006-2016 and compared time to first stoma closure in a Kaplan-Meier model and the proportion of patients who were stoma-free at end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage was found in 81 patients who were followed up in median 5.9 years (min-max: 0.53-13). EVAC was used on 14 (17%) patients and transanal irrigation on 34 (42%) patients. The remaining 33 (41%) patients either got a permanent colostomy or were treated only with antibiotics and percutaneous drainage. Treatment with EVAC or transanal irrigation led to similar rates of stoma closure, both when comparing all patients, and when comparing patients with similar defects. At the end of follow-up, 43% of patients treated with EVAC and 50% of patients treated with repeated irrigation were stoma-free (p = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of better outcomes in patients treated with EVAC. The study was, however, limited by small sample size.

摘要

目的

我们旨在评估在常规医疗保健中接受内镜经肛门闭合系统(即内镜负压辅助闭合系统 [EVAC])治疗的患者的长期结果,与经肛门灌洗相比。

方法

在这项回顾性、基于病历的观察性研究中,我们纳入了 2006 年至 2016 年来自斯德哥尔摩 3 家医院的低位前切除术后吻合口漏的患者,并比较了 Kaplan-Meier 模型中的首次造口关闭时间和随访结束时无造口的患者比例。

结果

81 例患者发生吻合口漏,中位随访时间为 5.9 年(最短-最长:0.53-13)。14 例(17%)患者使用 EVAC,34 例(42%)患者使用经肛门灌洗。其余 33 例(41%)患者要么接受永久性结肠造口术,要么仅接受抗生素和经皮引流治疗。EVAC 或经肛门灌洗治疗的造口关闭率相似,无论是在所有患者之间比较,还是在具有相似缺陷的患者之间比较。随访结束时,EVAC 治疗的患者中有 43%无造口,经肛门灌洗治疗的患者中有 50%无造口(p = 0.75)。

结论

我们没有发现 EVAC 治疗患者的结局更好的证据。然而,该研究受到样本量小的限制。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验