RESUMO
BACKGROUND: No randomized controlled trial has compared no rectopexy with rectopexy for external full-thickness rectal prolapse. OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to test the hypothesis that recurrence rates following no rectopexy are not inferior to those following rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. DESIGN: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to no rectopexy or rectopexy. The end point was recurrence rates defined as the presence of external full-thickness rectal prolapse after surgery. A prerandomized controlled trial meta-analysis suggested a sample size of 251 patients based on a 15% expected difference in the 5-year cumulative recurrence rate. Recurrence-free curves were generated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test, respectively. Data were presented as median (range). SETTING: This study was conducted in 41 tertiary centers in 21 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with prior surgery for rectal prolapse or pelvic floor descent were not included. INTERVENTIONS: The no-rectopexy arm was defined as abdominal surgery with rectal mobilization only. The rectopexy arm was defined as abdominal surgery with mobilization and rectopexy. Sigmoid resection was not randomized and was added in the presence of constipation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two hundred fifty-two patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse were randomly assigned to undergo no rectopexy or rectopexy in 41 centers. All patients but one underwent the allocated intervention. One hundred sixteen no-rectopexy patients were comparable to 136 rectopexy patients for age (P = .21), body mass index (P = .61), ASA grade (P = .29), and previous abdominal surgery (P = .935), but not for sex (P = .013) and external full-thickness rectal prolapse length (8 (1-25) cm vs 5 (1-20) cm, P = .026). Sigmoid resection was performed more frequently in the no-rectopexy arm (P < .001). There was no significant difference in complication rates (11% vs 17.9%; P = .139). The mortality rate was 0.8%. The loss of patients to 5-year follow-up was 10.3%. Actuarial analysis demonstrated a significant difference in 5-year recurrence rates between study arms (8.6% vs 1.5%) (log-rank, P = .003). LIMITATIONS: Limitations were the high proportion of male patients, randomization timing, the lack of standardization for rectopexy technique, and the 10% loss to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence rates following no rectopexy are inferior to those following rectopexy for external full-thickness rectal prolapse.
Assuntos
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema Digestório/métodos , Prolapso Retal/cirurgia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Distribuição de Qui-Quadrado , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Recidiva , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
The authors analyzed their data of the last three and a half years about patients with temporary loop ileostomy. We formed 18 ileostomies in patients with rectum carcinoma where the anastomosis was performed in the mid or lower rectum. Ten ileostomies were formed because of anastomotic leak, eight to protect the anastomosis, although there were no signs of insufficiency at the time of the intraoperative testing. Sixteen of the 18 patients had no complications. There were two complications in connection with ileostomies, these stomas were closed earlier than usual. Two other patients needed permanent stomas. Fourteen ileostomies were reversed without complications after 6-8 weeks. Two patients with local septic complications, following the closure, were treated conservatively. No reoperations were needed because of anal incontinence or anastomotic stenosis. We consider loop ileostomy safe with low morbidity, it can prevent diffuse peritonitis and/or a permanent stoma. Its routine use is recommended in patients with "ultra low" anastomoses and in cases where the intraoperative air test is positive.
