Original Research |
| data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98dea/98deaf37f1a4911f71384b3ce4219923c7b7d698" alt="" |
Perineal and Abdominal Approach in the Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse: Our 10-Year Clinical ExperienceÖmer Başol, Hüseyin Bilge, Faik Veysel Akpulat, Gizem Yaman, Abdullah Oğuz. Abstract | | | | The most common complaints on admission to the hospital were gas control disorder, difficulty in defecation and wetting with mucus. On physical examination, 26% of the patients had stage 1 and 63% stage 3 rectal prolapse. The mean age of 39 patients included in the study was 38.1 ± 19.2 (median 36). Of the patients included in the study, 14 (35.9%) were female and 25 (64.1%) were male. Surgery was performed with an abdominal and perineal approach in 53.8% of the patients, while laparoscopy was performed in 46.2%. The most frequently used abdominal surgical technique was Notaras (66.7%). The most common perineal approach technique was Altemeier (2.1%). Patients who underwent perineal approach were older and had a shorter hospital stay, and it was often performed under regional anesthesia. Complications developed in the early postoperative period in 10.4% of patients. The median hospital stay was 5 days (2-19) and the follow-up period was 13 months (9-19). Postoperative mortality did not occur in any of the patients. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery. There was no statistical difference in terms of early postoperative complications and recurrence.
Key words: Rectal prolapse, abdominal, perineal surgery
|
|
|
|