Is Ileostomy Always Necessary Following Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis?
Abstract Objective To verify the hypothesis that in most patients bowel segmental resection to treat endometriosis can be safely performed without creation of a stoma and to discuss the limitations of this statement. Design Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification III). Setting Tertia...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 2015-01, Vol.22 (1), p.103-109 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 109 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 103 |
| container_title | Journal of minimally invasive gynecology |
| container_volume | 22 |
| creator | Akladios, Cherif, MD, PhD Messori, Pietro, MD Faller, Emilie, MD Puga, Marco, MD Afors, Karolina, MD Leroy, Joel, MD Wattiez, Arnaud, MD |
| description | Abstract Objective To verify the hypothesis that in most patients bowel segmental resection to treat endometriosis can be safely performed without creation of a stoma and to discuss the limitations of this statement. Design Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification III). Setting Tertiary referral center. Patients Forty-one women with sigmoid and rectal endometriotic lesions who underwent segmental resection. Intervention Segmental resection procedures performed between 2004 and 2011. Patient demographic, operative, and postoperative data were compared. Measurements and Main Results Sigmoid resection was performed in 6 patients (15%), and rectal anterior resection in 35 patients (high in 21 patients [51%], and low, i.e., 5 cm from the anal verge and there are no adverse intraoperative events. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.001 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1640689265</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1553465014004075</els_id><sourcerecordid>1640689265</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-a10566f508e27efa97f9a5e79f5f0f1ec55f0f8e75ee8f6030820c3fda487e4b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtr3DAUhUVpadK0f6CL4mU341zZlixDaQlpHgMhhT6WRSjyVZArWxNdT8P8-8pMkkUXWZ27OOfA_Q5j7zmUHLg8Hsph9LdlBbwpQZUA_AU75ELUq0bK7uXTLeCAvSEaAOoWQL5mB5Xg0LVtd8h-r6lYB4w0x3FXnIR7s6PiGi0SmbQrzmMI8d5Pt8V3tLMJWSgfPk6Fi6n4irgp1pPzYU5mXmxnUx9HnJOP5OnLW_bKmUD47kGP2K_zs5-nl6urbxfr05OrlW0Un1eGg5DSCVBYtehM17rOCGw7Jxw4jlYsqrAViMpJqEFVYGvXm0a12NzUR-zjvneT4t0WadajJ4shmAnjljSXDUjVVVJka7W32hSJEjq9SX7Mv2oOesGqB71g1QtWDUpnrDn04aF_ezNi_xR55JgNn_YGzF_-9Zg0WY-Txd6nzEv30T_f__m_uA1-8taEP7hDGuI2TZmf5poqDfrHMuyyK28AGmhF_Q8HfZ7Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1640689265</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is Ileostomy Always Necessary Following Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Akladios, Cherif, MD, PhD ; Messori, Pietro, MD ; Faller, Emilie, MD ; Puga, Marco, MD ; Afors, Karolina, MD ; Leroy, Joel, MD ; Wattiez, Arnaud, MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Akladios, Cherif, MD, PhD ; Messori, Pietro, MD ; Faller, Emilie, MD ; Puga, Marco, MD ; Afors, Karolina, MD ; Leroy, Joel, MD ; Wattiez, Arnaud, MD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objective To verify the hypothesis that in most patients bowel segmental resection to treat endometriosis can be safely performed without creation of a stoma and to discuss the limitations of this statement. Design Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification III). Setting Tertiary referral center. Patients Forty-one women with sigmoid and rectal endometriotic lesions who underwent segmental resection. Intervention Segmental resection procedures performed between 2004 and 2011. Patient demographic, operative, and postoperative data were compared. Measurements and Main Results Sigmoid resection was performed in 6 patients (15%), and rectal anterior resection in 35 patients (high in 21 patients [51%], and low, i.e., <10 cm from the anal verge, in 14 [34%]). In 4 patients a temporary ileostomy was created. There was 1 anastomotic leak (2.4%), in a patient with an unprotected anastomosis, which was treated via laparoscopic surgery and creation of a temporary ileostomy. Other postoperative complications included hemoperitoneum, pelvic abscess, pelvic collection, and a ureteral vaginal fistula, in 1 patient each (all 2.4%). Conclusion A protective stoma may be averted in low anastomosis if it is >5 cm from the anal verge and there are no adverse intraoperative events.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1553-4650</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1553-4669</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25109779</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anastomotic leak ; Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology ; Bowel endometriosis ; Case-Control Studies ; Colectomy - methods ; Colorectal resection ; Endometriosis - surgery ; Female ; Humans ; Ileostomy ; Ileostomy - methods ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Middle Aged ; Obstetrics and Gynecology ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Rectal Diseases - surgery ; Rectum - surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Sigmoid Diseases - surgery ; Surgery ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2015-01, Vol.22 (1), p.103-109</ispartof><rights>AAGL</rights><rights>2015 AAGL</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-a10566f508e27efa97f9a5e79f5f0f1ec55f0f8e75ee8f6030820c3fda487e4b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-a10566f508e27efa97f9a5e79f5f0f1ec55f0f8e75ee8f6030820c3fda487e4b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.001$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25109779$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Akladios, Cherif, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Messori, Pietro, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faller, Emilie, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puga, Marco, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Afors, Karolina, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leroy, Joel, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wattiez, Arnaud, MD</creatorcontrib><title>Is Ileostomy Always Necessary Following Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis?</title><title>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</title><addtitle>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</addtitle><description>Abstract Objective To verify the hypothesis that in most patients bowel segmental resection to treat endometriosis can be safely performed without creation of a stoma and to discuss the limitations of this statement. Design Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification III). Setting Tertiary referral center. Patients Forty-one women with sigmoid and rectal endometriotic lesions who underwent segmental resection. Intervention Segmental resection procedures performed between 2004 and 2011. Patient demographic, operative, and postoperative data were compared. Measurements and Main Results Sigmoid resection was performed in 6 patients (15%), and rectal anterior resection in 35 patients (high in 21 patients [51%], and low, i.e., <10 cm from the anal verge, in 14 [34%]). In 4 patients a temporary ileostomy was created. There was 1 anastomotic leak (2.4%), in a patient with an unprotected anastomosis, which was treated via laparoscopic surgery and creation of a temporary ileostomy. Other postoperative complications included hemoperitoneum, pelvic abscess, pelvic collection, and a ureteral vaginal fistula, in 1 patient each (all 2.4%). Conclusion A protective stoma may be averted in low anastomosis if it is >5 cm from the anal verge and there are no adverse intraoperative events.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anastomotic leak</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</subject><subject>Bowel endometriosis</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Colectomy - methods</subject><subject>Colorectal resection</subject><subject>Endometriosis - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Ileostomy</subject><subject>Ileostomy - methods</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Obstetrics and Gynecology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Rectal Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Rectum - surgery</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sigmoid Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1553-4650</issn><issn>1553-4669</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtr3DAUhUVpadK0f6CL4mU341zZlixDaQlpHgMhhT6WRSjyVZArWxNdT8P8-8pMkkUXWZ27OOfA_Q5j7zmUHLg8Hsph9LdlBbwpQZUA_AU75ELUq0bK7uXTLeCAvSEaAOoWQL5mB5Xg0LVtd8h-r6lYB4w0x3FXnIR7s6PiGi0SmbQrzmMI8d5Pt8V3tLMJWSgfPk6Fi6n4irgp1pPzYU5mXmxnUx9HnJOP5OnLW_bKmUD47kGP2K_zs5-nl6urbxfr05OrlW0Un1eGg5DSCVBYtehM17rOCGw7Jxw4jlYsqrAViMpJqEFVYGvXm0a12NzUR-zjvneT4t0WadajJ4shmAnjljSXDUjVVVJka7W32hSJEjq9SX7Mv2oOesGqB71g1QtWDUpnrDn04aF_ezNi_xR55JgNn_YGzF_-9Zg0WY-Txd6nzEv30T_f__m_uA1-8taEP7hDGuI2TZmf5poqDfrHMuyyK28AGmhF_Q8HfZ7Q</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Akladios, Cherif, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Messori, Pietro, MD</creator><creator>Faller, Emilie, MD</creator><creator>Puga, Marco, MD</creator><creator>Afors, Karolina, MD</creator><creator>Leroy, Joel, MD</creator><creator>Wattiez, Arnaud, MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>Is Ileostomy Always Necessary Following Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis?</title><author>Akladios, Cherif, MD, PhD ; Messori, Pietro, MD ; Faller, Emilie, MD ; Puga, Marco, MD ; Afors, Karolina, MD ; Leroy, Joel, MD ; Wattiez, Arnaud, MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-a10566f508e27efa97f9a5e79f5f0f1ec55f0f8e75ee8f6030820c3fda487e4b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anastomotic leak</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</topic><topic>Bowel endometriosis</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Colectomy - methods</topic><topic>Colorectal resection</topic><topic>Endometriosis - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Ileostomy</topic><topic>Ileostomy - methods</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Rectal Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Rectum - surgery</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sigmoid Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Akladios, Cherif, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Messori, Pietro, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faller, Emilie, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puga, Marco, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Afors, Karolina, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leroy, Joel, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wattiez, Arnaud, MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Akladios, Cherif, MD, PhD</au><au>Messori, Pietro, MD</au><au>Faller, Emilie, MD</au><au>Puga, Marco, MD</au><au>Afors, Karolina, MD</au><au>Leroy, Joel, MD</au><au>Wattiez, Arnaud, MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is Ileostomy Always Necessary Following Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</addtitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>103</spage><epage>109</epage><pages>103-109</pages><issn>1553-4650</issn><eissn>1553-4669</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objective To verify the hypothesis that in most patients bowel segmental resection to treat endometriosis can be safely performed without creation of a stoma and to discuss the limitations of this statement. Design Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification III). Setting Tertiary referral center. Patients Forty-one women with sigmoid and rectal endometriotic lesions who underwent segmental resection. Intervention Segmental resection procedures performed between 2004 and 2011. Patient demographic, operative, and postoperative data were compared. Measurements and Main Results Sigmoid resection was performed in 6 patients (15%), and rectal anterior resection in 35 patients (high in 21 patients [51%], and low, i.e., <10 cm from the anal verge, in 14 [34%]). In 4 patients a temporary ileostomy was created. There was 1 anastomotic leak (2.4%), in a patient with an unprotected anastomosis, which was treated via laparoscopic surgery and creation of a temporary ileostomy. Other postoperative complications included hemoperitoneum, pelvic abscess, pelvic collection, and a ureteral vaginal fistula, in 1 patient each (all 2.4%). Conclusion A protective stoma may be averted in low anastomosis if it is >5 cm from the anal verge and there are no adverse intraoperative events.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>25109779</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.001</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1553-4650 |
| ispartof | Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2015-01, Vol.22 (1), p.103-109 |
| issn | 1553-4650 1553-4669 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1640689265 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Adult Anastomotic leak Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology Bowel endometriosis Case-Control Studies Colectomy - methods Colorectal resection Endometriosis - surgery Female Humans Ileostomy Ileostomy - methods Laparoscopy - methods Middle Aged Obstetrics and Gynecology Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Rectal Diseases - surgery Rectum - surgery Retrospective Studies Sigmoid Diseases - surgery Surgery Young Adult |
| title | Is Ileostomy Always Necessary Following Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T19%3A01%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20Ileostomy%20Always%20Necessary%20Following%20Rectal%20Resection%20for%20Deep%20Infiltrating%20Endometriosis?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20minimally%20invasive%20gynecology&rft.au=Akladios,%20Cherif,%20MD,%20PhD&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=103&rft.epage=109&rft.pages=103-109&rft.issn=1553-4650&rft.eissn=1553-4669&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1640689265%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1640689265&rft_id=info:pmid/25109779&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S1553465014004075&rfr_iscdi=true |