Medicine
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/12
This repository contains the published and unpublished research of the Faculty of Medicine by the staff members of the faculty
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item Randomised trial to determine the optimum level of pouch-anal anastomosis in stapled restoractive proctocolectomy(Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1995) Deen, K.I.; Williams, J.G.; Grant, E.A.; Billingham, C.; Keighley, M.R.B.PURPOSE:This study was undertaken to identify the optimum level of stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. METHOD: A prospective, randomized trial was completed to compare double-stapled ileoanal anastomosis placed at the top of anal columns (high, n = 26) with anastomosis at the dentate line (low, n = 21). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between operations (high, n = 7, vs. low, n = 8; P < 0.21). Pouch-anal functional score (scale 0-12; 0 = excellent, 12 = poor) was significantly better in the high anastomosis group (median (range): 2 (1-9) vs. 5.5 (1-12); P < 0.05). Incontinence occurred in only two patients randomized to high anastomosis compared with six in the low anastomosis group. Nocturnal soiling was reported in three patients after high anastomosis and in six patients after dentate line anastomosis. Both operations caused a significant but comparable reduction of maximum and resting pressure (31 percent after high anastomosis (P < 0.05); 23 percent after low anastomosis (P < 0.05)). However, a significant fall in functional length of the anal canal was only seen after a low pouch-anal anastomosis (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Stapled pouch-anal anastomosis at the top of anal columns gives better functional results compared with a stapled anastomosis at the dentate line.Item Abdominal resection rectopexy with pelvic floor repair versus perinealn rectosigmoidectomy and pelvic floor repair for full-thickness rectal prolapse(1994) Deen, K.I.; Grant, E.; Billingham, C.; Keighley, M.R.A randomized trial was performed to compare abdominal resection rectopexy and pelvic floor repair (n = 10) with perineal rectosigmoidectomy and pelvic floor repair (n = 10) in elderly female patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and faecal incontinence. There were no recurrences of full-thickness prolapse following resection rectopexy but one after rectosigmoidectomy. Continence to liquid and solid stool was achieved in nine patients, with faecal soiling reported in only two, after resection rectopexy and in eight, with soiling in six, following rectosigmoidectomy. The median (range) frequency of defaecation was only 1 (1-3) per day following resection rectopexy compared with 3 (1-6) per day after rectosigmoidectomy. There was an increase in the mean(s.d.) maximum resting pressure after resection rectopexy (19.3(15.28) cmH2O) compared with a reduction following rectosigmoidectomy (-3.4(13.75) cmH2O) (P = 0.003). Mean(s.d.) compliance was also greater after resection rectopexy than following rectosigmoidectomy (3.9(0.75) versus 2.2(0.78) ml/cmH2O, P < 0.001). Abdominal resection rectopexy gives better functional and physiological results than perineal rectosigmoidectomy.