-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Laparoscopic anterior resection of rectum for rectal deeply infiltrating endometriosis: A short-term prospective randomized trial.
- Yong-Ping Yang, Ling-Yun Yu, Jian Shi, Jian-Nan Li, Min Wang, and Tong-Jun Liu.
- Department of General Surgery, the Second Hospital of Jilin University.
- Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Nov 20; 99 (47): e23309e23309.
AbstractLaparoscopic anterior resection of rectum (AR) is one of surgical approaches for deeply infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). Up to date, no clinical trials have clearly analyzed the short-term and long-term complications post-surgically, indications or feasibilities for surgical procedure, or post-operative recovery. The aims of this trial were to evaluate the indications for laparoscopic AR, the short-term and long-term complications post-surgically, post-operative recovery.We conducted a prospective study of 29 patients. They were divided into 2 groups. The period of follow-up was 12 months post-surgery. In our study, we recruited patents with laparoscopic AR experiencing failure of medical treatment (3 months) or associated infertility (>2cycles). The operative data and short term and long term complications were recorded. The outcomes of laparoscopic AR group were assessed by questionnaires, such as NRS (numeric rating scale), KESS (Knowles-Eccersley-Scott Symptom Questionnaire), VAS (visual analogue scale), WCS (Wexner constipation score) and ABS (Abdominal Bloating Score), which were compared with the outcomes of medicine group at set time points of baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months. The overall outcomes of the two groups were assessed with 5-point Likert Scale.Patients in surgery group were recovery rapidly without serious short term or long term complications. All of NRS, KESS, VAS, WCS, and ABS in surgery group were getting better greatly than that in medicine group (3.04 ± 1.91 vs 5.41 ± 3.01, 5.64 ± 1.54 vs 7.01 ± 1.03, 0.50 ± 0.38 vs 3.58 ± 2.01, 4.43 ± 1.02 vs 8.92 ± 2.45, and 0.61 ± 0.34 vs 1.42 ± 0.71) at 3 months post-operation. However, the advantage of surgery group was almost vanished at 12 months (4.02 ± 2.53 vs 5.99 ± 2.31, 7.42 ± 3.17 vs 10.98 ± 2.53, 1.59 ± 1.3 vs 2.23 ± 1.59, 6.01 ± 2.53 vs 7.90 ± 3.25, and 1.31 ± 1.05 vs 1.39 ± 1.02). Furthermore, we compared the overall outcomes between the 2 groups with 5-point Likert Scale, with confirmation of the advantage at 3 months post-surgically. Additionally, we compared these questionnaires, with the finding that VAS and 5-point Likert Scale of surgery group had the same changes. Finally, a table of indications for laparoscopic AR were tabulated according our clinical experience.Patients can receive benefit from both medicine and laparoscopic AR. However, laparoscopic AR has obvious advantage of rapid symptom relief. Further studies and clinical data collections are required for indications and feasibility of combined therapy.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.