BACKGROUNDColostomy is a common part of the management of high anorectal malformation (ARM) in the pediatric population.OBJECTIVETo evaluate whether the type of colostomy (loop vs divided) has an impact on outcome in patients with ARM.DESIGNA retrospective study.SETTINGKing Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, a tertiary care center.PATIENTS AND METHODSAll patients who were managed with colostomy for ARM and had definitive repair during the period of January 2000 to December 2014. Outcomes relative to the type of the colostomy were compared.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESMorbidities associated with each type of colostomy.RESULTSThere were 104 patients managed for ARM with colostomy as staged procedures, 63 males and 41 females. Patients had a colostomy at a median age of 6 days and were closed at a median of 11 months. Definitive repair was at a median age of 17 months. Type of fistula was 8 perineal, 21 rectovestibular, 35 rectourethral, 11 rectovesical and there were 16 without fistula and 13 cloaca anomalies. There were 55 loop and 49 divided colostomies. There were 91 descending/sigmoid and 13 transverse colostomies. Operative time for loop colostomy closure was shorter than with divided colo6stomy (76 minutes vs 94 minutes, P=.002). Three patients among the divided group had reversed orientation of the colostomy that had affected bowel preparations negatively prior to its repair. There was no differences in complications of creation and closure of loop and divided colostomies except in occurrence of skin excoriation. There was more skin excoriation with divided colostomy compared to loop colostomy (17 vs 10, P=.04).CONCLUSIONSLoop colostomy has a shorter closure operative time and relatively fewer complications compared to the divided colostomy. Our data suggests that loop colostomy may be more favorable than divided colostomy for ARM patients.LIMITATIONSRetrospective nature of the study and some colostomies performed at other hospitals.
BACKGROUND:The satisfaction of surgical residents with their training programs plays an important role in dictating its output. This survey was conducted to explore the satisfaction of surgical residents with their training programs in the Riyadh area.METHODS:A survey questionnaire was distributed in four major hospitals to explore the view of surgical residents regarding their training programs. Frequency tables were generated for each question in the survey.RESULTS:About 78 survey forms were distributed and 52 were retrieved (67%). About 45% of residents had a comprehensive orientation on admission to the program, but only 20% felt it was helpful. Only 40% of residents felt that their trainers were committed to training and that the consultants who were trained abroad were more committed than those trained locally (62% vs 36%, P=.01). Only 15% felt the residents themselves had enough bedside teaching or operative experience. Seventy-eight percent of the residents felt that current training does not meet their expectations. However, 85% felt that training abroad was better than local training, and 60% felt it should be mandatory. While 90% felt that training programs should be unified nationally and controlled by one organization, only 6% felt that the current governing body was capable of monitoring the training. Moreover, only 28% felt that current reviews of programs by the governing body are effective.CONCLUSIONS:These results show that surgical residents are generally dissatisfied with current training programs. The study suggests that there are significant weaknesses in the current programs and the governing body may be ineffective in monitoring the programs. We feel that a national review of surgical training programs is warranted in view of these results.
Background/purpose Surgical management of high-type anorectal malformations (ARM) has evolved over the years with the widespread of the laparoscopic approach over the last two decades. This study aims to compare the outcome of patients with high anorectal malformation (ARM) managed with laparoscopic-assisted anorectal pull-through (LAARP) vs. the open posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) at a single Institution. Methods A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients, who were managed for high-type ARM at our institution, was performed for the period 2000–2015. Nine were excluded because of a lack of important data. Demographic data, surgical approach, associated anomalies, and complications were collected. Functional outcome was measured using the modified clinical scoring for the defecation function of the Japanese study group of anorectal anomalies. Comparison between groups was done using the T test for continuous variables and the Fisher-exact test for proportions. P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. Results There were 82 patients with high type imperforate anus (59 males and 23 females) 73% had laparoscopy vs. 27% open. Type of fistulae were rectourethral (36), rectovesical (12), no fistula (19), and (15) cloaca anomalies. Patients underwent surgery at a mean age 8.4 (laparoscopy) vs. 10.1 (open) months (P value = 0.14). There was no difference between the two groups regarding weight at the surgery or associated anomalies, except for VACTRAL and genitourinary malformations which were more among the laparoscopic group (8 vs. 1). There was no statistical significance for all elements of defecation function score: sensation, constipation, and soiling (P values 0.17, 0.6, 0.07, respectively). There was no difference between the two groups regarding rectal prolapse (P = 0.06), whereas rectal stenosis is more in PSARP compared to LAARP (P = 0.03). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in LAARP 7.1 vs. 9.4 (P = 0.006). Conclusions The defecation function and complication rate for both laparoscopic and open groups were almost similar. This may justify the preference of the laparoscopic approach over the open one, given its minimally invasive nature.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.