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This repository contains the published and unpublished research of the Faculty of Medicine by the staff members of the faculty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
3 results
Search Results
Item Longterm results of total pelvic floor repair for postobstetric fecal incontinence(Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1997) Korsgen, S.; Deen, K.I.; Keighley, M.R.B.PURPOSE:This study was designed to assess the long-term results of total pelvic floor repair for postobstetric neuropathic fecal incontinence. METHOD: Sixty-three of 75 women who had undergone total pelvic floor repair for postobstetric neuropathic fecal incontinence were traced and interviewed a median of 36 (18-78) months after surgery. Thirty-nine patients agreed to repeat anorectal physiology. RESULTS: Six patients required further surgery for persistent incontinence (colostomy, 4; graciloplasty, 2). For the remaining 57 patients, incontinence improved greatly in 28 (49 percent) patients, mildly in 13 (23 percent), and not at all in 16 (28 percent); daily incontinence was present in 41 patients (73 percent) before the operation but persisted in 13 (23 percent). Only eight (14 percent) patients were rendered completely continent; those with marked improvement were socially more active than those with little or no improvement. Resting and maximum squeeze pressures, anal canal sensation, rectal sensation, and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency did not predict outcome. Perineal descent, obesity, and a history of straining before the operation were all associated with a poor outcome. CONCLUSION: Total pelvic floor repair rarely renders patients with postobstetric neuropathic fecal incontinence completely continent but substantially improves continence and lifestyle in approximately one-half of them. The operation is less successful in obese patients and in those with a history of straining or perineal descent.Item Randomized trial of internal anal sphincter plication with pelvic floor repair for neuropathic fecal incontinence(Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1995) Deen, K.I.; Kumar, D.; Williams, J.G.; Grant, E.A.; Keighley, M.R.B.PURPOSE:This study was designed to examine the role of adjuvant internal anal sphincter plication in women with neuropathic fecal incontinenceundergoing pelvic floor repair. METHODS: We completed a randomized trial with symptomatic and physiologic assessment before and after surgery. RESULTS: There was no symptomatic advantage of adding internal sphincter plication; the mean improvement of functional score was 3.61 +/- 1.82 (standard deviation; P < 0.01) following pelvic floor repair alone compared with 2.80 +/- 1.66 (standard deviation; P < 0.01) when adjuvant internal and sphincter plication was added. The addition of internal sphincter plication was associated with a significant fall in maximum anal resting and squeezing pressures (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of internal sphincter plication is not advised in women with neuropathic fecal incontinence treated by pelvic floor repair.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.