Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorGuzmán Rojas, Rodrigo 
Authordc.contributor.authorAtan, Ixora 
Authordc.contributor.authorShek, Ka Lai 
Authordc.contributor.authorDietz, Hans 
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2015-12-09T20:19:53Z
Available datedc.date.available2015-12-09T20:19:53Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2015
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationAUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY Volumen: 55 Número: 5 Páginas: 487-492en_US
Identifierdc.identifier.issn0004-8666
Identifierdc.identifier.otherDOI: 10.1111/ajo.12347
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/135572
General notedc.descriptionArtículo de publicación ISI Sin acceso a texto completoen_US
Abstractdc.description.abstractBackgroundRectocele is a herniation of the anterior wall of the rectal ampulla through a defect in the rectovaginal septum causing protrusion of the posterior vaginal wall. Common symptoms include symptoms of prolapse and obstructed defecation. AimsTo describe subjective, anatomical and functional results of defect-specific rectocele repair. Materials and MethodsThis is an internal audit of 137 women who underwent defect-specific rectocele repair. Pre- and post-operative assessment included a standardised interview, clinical examination and 3D/4D transperineal ultrasound. Outcome measures were symptoms of obstructed defecation, recurrent prolapse symptoms, clinical posterior compartment recurrence and rectocele recurrence on ultrasound. ResultsAt a mean follow-up of 1.4years, 117 (85%) of women considered themselves cured or improved. Thirty-four (25%) complained of recurrent prolapse symptoms and 47 (34%) symptoms of obstructed defecation, a significant reduction (P<0.0001). Clinical recurrence (Bp-1) was seen in 19 women (14%) and recurrence on ultrasound in 27 (20%). The mean depth of recurrence was 16.6mm (10.3-25.1). We tested multiple potential predictors of recurrence, including age, BMI, vaginal parity, previous hysterectomy and/or prolapse surgery, follow-up time, pre-operative clinical and ultrasound findings. Only hiatal area on Valsalva (OR 0.95 for sonographic recurrence, P=0.01) and enterocele (for clinical and sonographic recurrence, OR 4.03, P=0.01 and OR 2.72, P=0.02, respectively) reached significance. ConclusionDefect-specific rectocele repair is effective both in restitution of normal anatomy and in resolving prolapse and obstructed defecation symptoms at a mean follow-up of 1.4years.en_US
Lenguagedc.language.isoenen_US
Publisherdc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen_US
Type of licensedc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Chile*
Link to Licensedc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/cl/*
Keywordsdc.subject3Den_US
Keywordsdc.subject4D ultrasounden_US
Keywordsdc.subjectOobstructed defecationen_US
Keywordsdc.subjectProlapseen_US
Keywordsdc.subjectRectoceleen_US
Keywordsdc.subjectTransperineal ultrasounden_US
Títulodc.titleDefect-specific rectocele repair: medium-term anatomical, functional and subjective outcomesen_US
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revista


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Chile
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Chile