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This repository contains the published and unpublished research of the Faculty of Medicine by the staff members of the faculty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
4 results
Search Results
Item Abdominal suture rectopexy without large bowel resection for rectal prolapse does not result in constipation: data from prospective bowel function evaluation, anorectal physiology and transit studies(The College of Surgeons of Sri Lanka and SAARC Surgical Care Society, 2003) Sabaratnam, V. Y.; Rathnayake, G.; Deen, K.I.INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, suture rectopexy has been combined with sigmoid resection for rectal prolapse to prevent postoperative constipation. Furthermore, preservation of lateral ligaments will not result in constipation. Suture rectopexy alone without resection, is being popularised. OBJECTIVE: To study the influence of suture rectopexy without resection on colonic transit and postoperative constipation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients (median (range) age 32(19-82) years) with rectal prolapse underwent suture rectopexy alone without division of lateral ligaments from March 1999. Prospectively, bowel function and anorectal physiology (ARP) were evaluated before and after surgery in a subset of 15 patients. Follow up (median, range) has been 12 (1-42) months. RESULTS: Follow up was complete in 36 patients. Recurrent prolapse was seen in 5 (full thickness 3 (8.3%); mucosa! prolapse 2 (5.5%)). Physiological data in a subset of 15 patients revealed no significant difference in anorectal physiology before and 3 months after the operation (table). Similarly there was no significant difference in the rate of evacuation of transit markers on day 3 and 5. Maximum resting pressure (median and range) was 25(7-50) mmHg and 33.2(7- 80, P value 0.026) before and after surgery. The median (range) maximum squeeze pressure were 67.5(19-i30) and 90(28 - 157, P 0.!64) before and after surgery. The maximum tolerable volume (ml) was 230 ( ! 80 -340) before surgery and 200 (50-290) after surgery (P. 0.139). Transit (as an excretion percentage) was 100% before and after surgery (P = 0. 197). CONCLUSION: Abdominal suture rectopexy without resection for rectal prolapse improves constipation and does not result in significant change in colonic transit. We recommend this procedure either by open operation or by laparoscopy.Item A New technique for suture rectopexy without resection for rectal prolapse(Springer-Verlag, 2009) Liyanage, C.A.H.; Rathnayake, G.; Deen, K.I.BACKGROUND: We surmised that if rectopexy was performed without dissection of the lateral rectal stalks in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and normal preoperative transit, sigmoid resection may not be required. This study evaluated a new approach to abdominal suture rectopexy for rectal prolapse. METHODS: A total of 81 patients (57 male, 24 female; median age 37 years, range 5-82 years) with rectal prolapse were assessed by clinical examination, anal manometry (maximum resting pressure, MRP, and squeeze pressure, MSP) and radioopaque marker transit studies. Of the 81 patients, 70 with normal preoperative transit underwent suture fixation alone, without resection, performed under spinal anaesthesia, through a 7-cm transverse left lower quadrant incision gaining access to the presacral space via a left pararectal "window", preserving the lateral stalks. RESULTS: Average surgical time was 50 min, mortality was zero, and morbidity was 9% (three patients with wound infection, four with urinary retention). Anal incontinence improved in 43 of 53 patients (81%, p=0.001). MRP and MSP had improved at 3 months after surgery: MRP from a mean of 27.6+/-1.4 mmHg (range 2-30 mmHg) before surgery to 32.5+/-2.21 mmHg (2-60 mmHg) after surgery (p=0.008); MSP from 69.25+/-6.4 mmHg (8-153 mmHg) before surgery to 79+/-4.77 mmHg (35-157 mmHg) after surgery (p=0.001).. Transit was unchanged in 18 of 20 patients (90%) who were evaluated before and after surgery; none was constipated after surgery. At 56 months, prolapse had recurred in five patients (7%). CONCLUSION: Abdominal suture rectopexy with a left pararectal approach without sigmoid resection in those with normal preoperative transit resulted in an improvement in anal incontinence and satisfactory long-term control of prolapse. The operation did not alter transit and did not result in significant constipationItem Quality of life of stoma patients: temporary ileostomy versus colostomy(Springer-Verlag, 2003) Silva, M.A.; Rathnayake, G.; Deen, K.I.Ileostomy for proximal diversion as a preferred option over colostomy has been a recent topic of interest. Our study evaluated the quality of life (QOL) of patients with a temporary ileostomy and compared it with that of patients with a temporary colostomy. The QOL of 25 patients with an ileostomy(median age 42 years, range 22-76 years) was compared with that for 25 patients with a colostomy (median age 44 years, range 18-70 years). Indications for a stoma were rectal carcinoma, trauma, inflammatory bowel disease, anastomotic leak, or incontinence following an operative procedure for rectal prolapse. The study was conducted at a median of 8 weeks (range 6-16 weeks) for ileostomy patients and of 9 weeks (range 5-17 weeks) for colostomy patients following stoma creation. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used, with responses obtained for 10 QOL questions on a visual analog rating scale (0-100 mm); they were graded good (71-100), satisfactory (31-70), or poor (0-30). Altogether, 22 (88%)patients with an ileostomy, compared with 16 (64%) patients with a colostomy, were able to purchase their stomal appliances ( p = 0.09, chi(2): NS). Effluent was tolerable in 18 (72%) patients with an ileostomy compared with 7 (28%) patients with a colostomy ( p = 0.002, chi(2)). Appetite was not affected in any of the patients with an ileostomy (100%), compared with 64% of patients with a colostomy ( p = 0.002, chi(2)), travel by public transport 32% compared to 28% with colostomy (NS), dress in 20% compared to 24% with colostomy (NS), and daily activities 28% compared to 24% with colostomy (NS). Moreover, 68% with an ileostomy did not have a problem with hygiene compared with 40% with a colostomy (NS); 95% with an ileostomy abstained from sexual activity compared with 81% with a colostomy ( p = 0.21, chi(2): NS). Both ileostomy and colostomy resulted in significant QOL impairment. However, with ileostomy, the effluent was more tolerable, had less of an impact on personal hygiene, and preserved the appetite compared with colostomy. There were no differences in travel, dress, daily chores, or sexual activity between the two groups.Item Patients' experience and quality of life with a loop ileostomy(College of Surgeons of Sri Lanka, 2000) Wijesuriya, S.R.E.; Rathnayake, G.; Deen, K.I.Background: Temporary proximmal faecal diversion has been either loop ileostomy or loop colostomy. Recently, loop ileostomy has been preferred over loop colostomy. This study evaluated patient's quality of life with a temporary diverting loop ileostomy. Patients and methods: Life quality of 25 (8 males, median age 40 years, range 22-70 years) patients who underwent creation of a loop ileostomy at the university surgical unit of North Colombo General Hospital were evaluated using self-administrated structured questionnaire. Responses were obrained for ten life quality questions on visual analogue rating scale (0-100mm) and graded good (71-100), satisfactory (31-70) or poor (0-30). Results: Twenty four (96 percent ) patients were able to purchase their stoma appliances without much difficulty. Almost all patients reported a tolerable ileostomy effluent. Seventeen (94 percent ) of 18 patients reported abstinence from sexual activity. A loop ileostomy had no effect on appetite in 60 percent , travel by public transport on 20 percent , and dress in 8 percent , or activities of daily living in 20 percent of patients. Conclusion: A loop ileostomy seems to impair quality of life in most patients. Strained sexual relationships appear to be the most distressing problem. Most patients are able to bare the cost of their stoma appliances.