Rectal atresia and rectal stenosis: the ARM-Net Consortium experience
Rattachement africain : nl, it, il. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
PURPOSE: To assess the number, characteristics, and functional short-, and midterm outcomes of patients with rectal atresia (RA) and stenosis (RS) in the ARM-Net registry. METHODS: Patients with RA/RS were retrieved from the ARM-Net registry. Patient characteristics, associated anomalies, surgical approach, and functional bowel outcomes at 1 and 5-year follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: The ARM-Net registry included 2619 patients, of whom 36 (1.3%) had RA/RS. Median age at follow-up was 7.0 years (IQR 2.3-9.0). Twenty-three patients (63.9%, RA n = 13, RS n = 10) had additional anomalies. PSARP was the most performed reconstructive surgery for both RA (n = 9) and RS (n = 6) patients. At 1-year follow-up, 11/24 patients with known data (45.8%, RA n = 5, RS n = 6) were constipated, of whom 9 required stool softeners and/or laxatives. At 5-year follow-up, 8/9 patients with known data (88.9%, RA n = 4, RS n = 4) were constipated, all requiring laxatives and/or enema. CONCLUSION: RA and RS are rare types of ARM, representing 1.3% of patients in the ARM-Net registry. Additional anomalies were present in majority of patients. Different surgical approaches were performed as reconstructive treatment, with constipation occurring in 46% and 89% of the patients at 1 and 5-year follow-up. However, accurate evaluation of long-term functional outcomes remains challenging.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Rectal atresia and rectal stenosis: the ARM-Net Consortium experience
- Date Crossref
- 28/07/2023
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.