Dataset Information

Minimally invasive perineal redo surgery for rectovesical and rectovaginal fistulae: A case series.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Iatrogenic recto-urogenital fistulae are refractory complications that rarely heal without surgical intervention. The ongoing local infection causes pain, discomfort and substantially impacts quality of life. Surgical repair requires adequate exposure and space to fill with healthy tissue, which is a major challenge in pelvic redo surgery. An abdominal approach to repair the fistula is associated with major morbidity and often fails to expose the deep pelvis. In our experience a novel transperineal minimally invasive approach a utilizing single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) technique could offer improved results.

Presentation of cases

In the present study, three cases of patients with recto-urogenital fistulae after pelvic surgery are described. Two patients were diagnosed with a rectovesical fistula and one patient with a rectovaginal fistula. In all three cases, a minimally invasive perineal approach, using a SILS port, was used to perform surgical repair. The closure of the fistulae involved: a separate repair of the urethra/bladder or vaginal defect and the rectal defect, followed by interposition of vascularized tissue by either a pudendal thigh fasciocutaneous flap or omentoplasty.

Discussion and conclusion

This study is the first to report on a minimally invasive perineal approach, utilizing a SILS technique for recto-urogenital fistulae repair after previous pelvic surgery. The current approach improves exposure, creates surgical space, optimizes view and allows the interposition of vascularized tissue, without causing substantial blood loss and avoiding major abdominal surgery.

SUBMITTER: Gruter AAJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7724097 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMeningioma surgery has evolved over the last 20 years with increased use of minimally invasive approaches including the endoscopic endonasal route and endoscope-assisted and gravity-assisted transcranial approaches. As the "keyhole" concept remains controversial, we present detailed outcomes in a cohort series.MethodsRetrospective analysis was done for all patients undergoing meningioma removal at a tertiary brain tumor referral center from 2008-2021. Keyhole approaches were defined as: use of a minimally invasive "retractorless" approach for a given meningioma in which a traditional larger approach is often used instead. The surgical goal was maximal safe removal including conservative (subtotal) removal for some invasive locations. Primary outcomes were resection rates, complications, length of stay and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS). Secondary outcomes were endoscopy use, perioperative treatments, tumor control and acute MRI FLAIR/T2 changes to assess for brain manipulation and retraction injury.ResultsOf 329 patients, keyhole approaches were utilized in 193(59%) patients (mean age 59±13; 30 (15.5%) had prior surgery) who underwent 213 operations; 205(96%) were skull base location. Approaches included: endoscopic endonasal (n = 74,35%), supraorbital (n = 73,34%), retromastoid (n = 38,18%), mini-pterional (n = 20,9%), suboccipital (n = 4,2%), and contralateral transfalcine (n = 4,2%). Primary outcomes: Gross total/near total (>90%) resection was achieved in 125(59%) (5% for petroclival, cavernous sinus/Meckel's cave, spheno-cavernous locations vs 77% for all other locations). Major complications included: permanent neurological worsening 12(6%), CSF leak 2(1%) meningitis 2(1%). There were no DVTs, PEs, MIs or 30-day mortality. Median LOS decreased from 3 to 2 days in the last 2 years; 94% were discharged to home with favorable 90-day KPS in 176(96%) patients. Secondary outcomes: Increased FLAIR/T2 changes were noted on POD#1/2 MRI in 36/213(17%) cases, resolving in all but 11 (5.2%). Endoscopy was used in 87/139(63%) craniotomies, facilitating additional tumor removal in 55%. Tumor progression occurred in 26(13%) patients, mean follow-up 42±36 months.Conclusions & relevanceOur experience suggests minimally invasive keyhole transcranial and endoscopic endonasal meningioma removal is associated with comparable resection rates and low complication rates, short hospitalizations and high 90-day performance scores in comparison to prior reports using traditional skull base approaches. Subtotal removal may be appropriate for invasive/adherent meningiomas to avoid neurological deficits and other post-operative complications, although longer follow-up is needed. With careful patient selection and requisite experience, these approaches may be considered reasonable alternatives to traditional transcranial approaches.

Project description:Objective:We compared the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive parafascicular surgery (MIPS) as a frontline treatment for spontaneous supratentorial ICH to medical management. Patients. The sample consisted of 17 patients who underwent MIPS from January 2014 to December 2016 and a comparison group of 23 patients who were medically managed from June 2012 to December 2013. All had an International Classification of Disease (ICD) diagnosis of 431 and were treated at Grady Memorial Hospital, an urban, public, safety-net hospital. Methods:The primary endpoint was risk of inpatient mortality. Secondary endpoints were rates of inpatient infection and favorable discharge status, defined as discharge to home or rehabilitation facility. Demographics and pre- and postclinical outcomes were compared using t-tests, the Mann-Whitney test, and chi-squared tests for continuous, ordinal and categorical measures, respectively. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the time to inpatient death. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine treatment effects on secondary outcomes. We also conducted exploratory subgroup analyses which compared MIPS to two medical management subgroups: those who had surgery during their hospitalization and those that did not. Results:Two patients (12%) died in the MIPS group compared to three (12%) in the medical management group. MIPS did not increase the risk of inpatient mortality relative to medical management. Rates of inpatient infection did not differ significantly between the two groups; eight MIPS patients (47%) and 13 medically managed patients (50%) contracted infections. MIPS significantly increased the likelihood of favorable discharge status (odds ratio (OR) 1.77; 95% CI, 1.12-21.9) compared to medical management. No outcome measures were significantly different between MIPS and the medical management subgroup without surgery, while rates of favorable discharge were higher among the MIPS patients compared to the medical management group with surgery. Conclusions:These data suggest that MIPS, as a frontline treatment for spontaneous ICH, versus medical management for spontaneous ICH warrants further investigation.

Project description:BackgroundPancreatic resections are among the most technically demanding procedures, including a high risk of potentially life-threatening complications and outcomes strongly correlated to hospital volume and individual surgeon experience. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs) have become a part of standard surgical practice worldwide over the last decade; however, in comparison with other surgical procedures, the implementation of minimally invasive approaches into clinical practice has been rather slow.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to highlight and summarize the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of minimally invasive approaches in pancreatic surgery.MethodsA WHO trial registry and Pubmed database literature search was performed to identify all RCTs comparing MIPRs (robot-assisted and/or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy [DP] or pancreatoduodenectomy [PD]) with open pancreatic resections (OPRs).ResultsOverall, five RCTs on MIPR versus OPR have been published and seven RCTs are currently recruiting. For DP, the results of two RCTs were in favor of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in terms of shorter hospital stay and less intraoperative blood loss, with comparable morbidity and mortality. Regarding PD, two RCTs showed similar advantages for MIPD. However, concerns were raised after the early termination of the third multicenter RCT on MIPD versus open PD due to higher complication-related mortality in the laparoscopic group and no clear other demonstrable advantages. No RCTs on robot-assisted pancreatic procedures are available as yet.ConclusionAt the current level of evidence, MIDP is thought to be safe and feasible, although oncological safety should be further evaluated. Based on the results of the RCTs conducted for PD, MIPD cannot be proclaimed as the superior alternative to open PD, although promising outcomes have been demonstrated by experienced centers. Future studies should provide answers to the role of robotic approaches in pancreatic surgery and aim to identity the subgroups of patients or indications with the greatest benefit of MIPRs.