[Rare Clinical Case of a Small Intestine Ileus Following an Invaginated Meckel's Diverticulum]. / Seltener klinischer Fall eines Dünndarm-Ileus in Folge eines invaginierten Meckel'schen Divertikels.

MEDICAL HISTORY AND CLINICAL FINDINGS: A 43-year old male patient was admitted because of diffuse abdominal discomfort for two days, which had started in the upper abdomen; medical history, no previous surgical interventions at the abdomen. INVESTIGATIONS: Gastroscopy and abdominal ultrasound revealed only a mild gastritis. Laboratory parameters: showed only a slight leucocytosis (10 610/µL). On the 1st day of the hospital stay, the patient developed a worsening of the abdominal symptoms with distended abdomen, sounding bowel movements and recurrent vomiting, which were interpreted as acute abdomen by the surgeon on call leading to the indication of a surgical intervention. CT scan revealed an intraluminal tumor. DIAGNOSIS: Suspicion of a mechanical ileus by an obstructing tumor of the small intestine. THERAPY: Median laparotomy of the lower abdomen revealed an invagination at the terminal ileum - after devagination, an invaginated Meckel's diverticulum was found. This was resected at its basis and the ileal wall was transversally sutured. COURSE: The postoperative course was uneventful. DISCUSSION (CONCLUSION): An invaginated Meckel's diverticulum belongs rather to the less frequent causes of an ileus of the small intestine and an unclear / acute abdomen in adults.

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-center study during 16 years.

BACKGROUND: Many different techniques to treat rectal prolapse have been introduced. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy has been shown to entail benefits regarding both perioperative results and short-term outcome, whereas data for long-term outcome are scarce. METHODS: Between 1993 and 2008, all laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse II° or III° were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. We analyzed demographic, perioperative, and follow-up results. We defined two periods (1993-2000 and 2001-2008) for comparison of data. Long-term follow-up was obtained by sending questionnaires to all patients. Evaluation included constipation, incontinence, and recurrence of prolapse. RESULTS: Between January 1993 and November 2008, we performed 152 laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse. Median age was 64.1 years (± 14.6). Conversion rate was 0.7% (1), mean operation time was 204 (± 65.3) min, and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first (P < 0.0001). Mortality was 0.7% (n = 1). Complication rates were 4% (n = 6; major) and 19.2% (n = 29; minor), respectively. Mean length of hospital stay was 11.3 (± 6.4) days and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first period (P < 0.0001). Mean time of follow-up was 47.7 (± 41.6) months. Improvement or complete elimination of constipation was stated by 81.3% (65), and improvement or elimination of incontinence was stated by 67.3% (72). Overall recurrence rate was 11.1% (n = 10) with a rate of 5.6% (n = 5) for a 5-year period. Of those patients with previous perineal surgery for rectal prolapse, 53.8% (7/13) experienced recurrent prolapse after laparoscopic resection rectopexy in contrast to 3.9% (3/77) of patients without previous perineal prolapse surgery (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the benefits of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse regarding both perioperative results and long-term functional outcome. Preceding perineal or open abdominal operations have an impact on recurrence after laparoscopic resection rectopexy.