Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol ; 27(5): 1014-1016, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1454309

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate our application of the ghost ileostomy in the setting of laparoscopic segmental bowel resection for symptomatic bowel endometriosis nodule. DESIGN: Technical step-by-step surgical video description (educative video) SETTING: University Tertiary Hospital. Institutional Review Board ruled that approval was not required for this study. Endometriosis affects the bowel in 3% to 37% of all cases, and in 90% of these cases, the rectum or sigmoid colon is also involved. Infiltration up to the rectal mucosa and invasion of >50% of the circumference have been suggested as an indication for bowel resection [1]. Apart from general risks (bleeding, infection, direct organ injuries) and bowel and bladder dysfunctions, anastomotic leakage is one of the most severe complications. In women with bowel and vaginal mucosa endometriosis involvement, there is a risk of rectovaginal fistula after concomitant rectum and vagina resections. Hence, for lower colorectal anastomosis, the use of temporary protective ileostomy is usually recommended to prevent these complications but carries on stoma-related risks, such as hernia, retraction, dehydration, prolapse, and necrosis. Ghost ileostomy is a specific technique, first described in 2010, that gives an easy and safe option to prevent anastomotic leakage with maximum preservation of the patient's quality of life [2]. In case of anastomotic leakage, the ghost (or virtual) ileostomy is converted, under local anesthesia, into a loop (real) ileostomy by extracting the isolated loop through an adequate abdominal wall opening. In principle, avoiding readmission for performing the closure of the ileostomy, with all the costs related, means a considerable saving for the hospital management. Also, applying a protective rectal tube in intestinal anastomosis may have a beneficial effect [3]. These options are performed by general surgeons in oncological scenarios, but their use in endometriosis has never been described. INTERVENTIONS: In a 32-year-old woman with intense dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, dyschesia, and cyclic rectal bleeding, a complete laparoscopic approach was performed using blunt and sharp dissection with cold scissors, bipolar dissector and a 5-mm LigaSure Advance (Covidien, Valley lab, Norwalk, Connecticut). An extensive adhesiolysis restoring the pelvic anatomy and endometriosis excision was done. Afterward, the segmental bowel resection was performed using linear and circular endo-anal stapler technique with immediate end-to-end bowel anastomosis and transit reconstitution. Once anastomosis was done, the terminal ileal loop was identified, and a window was made in the adjacent mesentery. Then, an elastic tape (vessel loop) was passed around the ileal loop, brought out of the abdomen through the right iliac fossa 5-mm port site incision and, fixed to the abdominal wall using nonabsorbable stitches. Finally, a trans-anal tube was placed for 5 days. The patient was discharged on the fifth day postoperatively without any complications. The tape was removed 10 days after surgery, and the loop dropped back. Two months after the intervention, the patient remains asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: Ghost ileostomy is a simple, safe, and feasible technique available in the setting of lower colorectal anastomosis following bowel endometriosis resection.


Subject(s)
Endometriosis/surgery , Ileostomy/methods , Intestinal Diseases/surgery , Laparoscopy/methods , Abdominal Wall/pathology , Abdominal Wall/surgery , Adult , Anal Canal/surgery , Anastomosis, Surgical/methods , Anastomotic Leak , Colon, Sigmoid/surgery , Dysmenorrhea/etiology , Dysmenorrhea/surgery , Endometriosis/complications , Endometriosis/pathology , Female , Humans , Intestinal Diseases/complications , Intestinal Diseases/pathology , Pelvis/pathology , Pelvis/surgery , Rectum/pathology , Rectum/surgery
2.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 225(5): 556.e1-556.e10, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1377644

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pelvic reconstructive surgery may cause significant postoperative pain, especially with posterior colporrhaphy, contributing to a longer hospital stay and increased pain medication utilization. Regional blocks are being increasingly utilized in gynecologic surgery to improve postoperative pain and decrease opioid usage, yet preoperative pudendal blocks have not been used routinely during posterior colporrhaphy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effect of preoperative regional pudendal nerve block using a combination of 1.3% liposomal and 0.25% plain bupivacaine vs 0.25% plain bupivacaine alone on vaginal pain after posterior colporrhaphy on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. We hypothesized that there would be a reduction in vaginal pain scores for the study group vs the control group over the first 72 hours. STUDY DESIGN: This was a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial that included patients undergoing a posterior colporrhaphy, either independently or in conjunction with other vaginal or abdominal reconstructive procedures. Patients were block randomized to receive 20 mL of either a combination of 1.3% liposomal and 0.25% plain bupivacaine (study) or 20 mL of 0.25% plain bupivacaine (control) in a regional pudendal block before the start of surgery. Double blinding was achieved by covering four 5-mL syringes containing the randomized local anesthetic. After induction of anesthesia, a pudendal nerve block was performed per standard technique (5 mL superiorly and 5 mL inferiorly each ischial spine) using a pudendal kit. The primary outcome was to evaluate postoperative vaginal pain using a visual analog scale on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. Secondary outcomes included total analgesic medication usage through postoperative day 3, postoperative voiding and defecatory dysfunction, and impact of vaginal pain on quality of life factors. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled (60 in each group). There were no significant differences in demographic data, including baseline vaginal pain (P=.88). Postoperative vaginal pain scores were significantly lower in the combined liposomal and bupivacaine group at all time points vs the plain bupivacaine group. Median pain scores for the study and control groups, respectively, were 0 (0-2) and 2 (0-4) for postoperative day 1 (P=.03), 2 (1-4) and 3 (2-5) for postoperative day 2 (P=.05), and 2 (1-4) and 3 (2-5) for postoperative day 3 (P=.02). Vaginal pain scores increased from postoperative day 1 to postoperative days 2 and 3 in both groups. There was a significant decrease in ibuprofen (P=.01) and acetaminophen (P=.03) usage in the study group; however, there was no difference between groups in total opioid consumption through postoperative day 3 (P=.82). There was no difference in successful voiding trials (study 72%, control 82%, P=.30), return of bowel function (P>.99), or quality of life factors (sleep, stress, mood, and activity). CONCLUSION: Preoperative regional pudendal block with a combination of liposomal and plain bupivacaine provided more effective vaginal pain control than plain bupivacaine alone for reconstructive surgery that included posterior colporrhaphy. Given the statistically significant decrease in vaginal pain in the study group, this block may be considered as a potential adjunct for multimodal pain reduction in this patient population.


Subject(s)
Bupivacaine/administration & dosage , Nerve Block/methods , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/methods , Vagina/surgery , Adult , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Liposomes , Middle Aged , Pelvis/surgery
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL