FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2467297075> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2467297075 endingPage "762.e9" @default.
• W2467297075 startingPage "762.e1" @default.
• W2467297075 abstract "Background Two surgical approaches usually are used in the surgical management of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum: the radical approach that mainly is based on colorectal resection and the conservative or symptom-guided approach that prioritizes conservation of the rectum. There are no data available that compare long-term functional digestive outcomes of 1 approach to the other. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare long-term digestive outcomes in women who were treated by either rectal shaving or colorectal resection for deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Study Design A retrospective comparative study was performed. All women who were treated with surgery for deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum by either shaving or colorectal resection at the University Hospital of Rouen from January 2005 to January 2010 were enrolled. Follow-up evaluation was carried out for a minimum of 5 years. Postoperative evaluation of digestive symptoms was performed by 4 standardized gastrointestinal questionnaires: the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, the Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom score for constipation, the Wexner score for anal continence, and the Bristol Stool Score. Symptoms that were related to endometriosis, fertility, and disease recurrence were obtained from a specific questionnaire. Results A total of 77 women were included. Three women were lost to follow up (3.9%), and 3 were treated by disc excision (3.9%). The mean follow-up time was 80±19 months. Forty-six women underwent conservative rectal shaving, and 25 women underwent colorectal resection. Patient characteristics and the severity of the disease were comparable in both groups. Patients who were treated by rectal shaving had significantly better Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index values, lower Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom scores for postoperative constipation, and better anal continence. No statistically significant differences were revealed for postoperative pelvic pain. Rectal recurrence occurred in 8.7% of patients who were treated by conservative surgery: 4.3% underwent secondary colorectal resection and 4.3% were treated secondarily by rectal shaving. Consequently, avoiding a recurrence for merely 1 patient would have required 11 patients to undergo colorectal resection instead of shaving. Conclusion Our data suggest that, in patients who are treated for rectal endometriosis, colorectal resection does not improve long-term postoperative functional outcomes when compared with rectal shaving. Two surgical approaches usually are used in the surgical management of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum: the radical approach that mainly is based on colorectal resection and the conservative or symptom-guided approach that prioritizes conservation of the rectum. There are no data available that compare long-term functional digestive outcomes of 1 approach to the other. The purpose of this study was to compare long-term digestive outcomes in women who were treated by either rectal shaving or colorectal resection for deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. A retrospective comparative study was performed. All women who were treated with surgery for deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum by either shaving or colorectal resection at the University Hospital of Rouen from January 2005 to January 2010 were enrolled. Follow-up evaluation was carried out for a minimum of 5 years. Postoperative evaluation of digestive symptoms was performed by 4 standardized gastrointestinal questionnaires: the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index, the Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom score for constipation, the Wexner score for anal continence, and the Bristol Stool Score. Symptoms that were related to endometriosis, fertility, and disease recurrence were obtained from a specific questionnaire. A total of 77 women were included. Three women were lost to follow up (3.9%), and 3 were treated by disc excision (3.9%). The mean follow-up time was 80±19 months. Forty-six women underwent conservative rectal shaving, and 25 women underwent colorectal resection. Patient characteristics and the severity of the disease were comparable in both groups. Patients who were treated by rectal shaving had significantly better Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index values, lower Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom scores for postoperative constipation, and better anal continence. No statistically significant differences were revealed for postoperative pelvic pain. Rectal recurrence occurred in 8.7% of patients who were treated by conservative surgery: 4.3% underwent secondary colorectal resection and 4.3% were treated secondarily by rectal shaving. Consequently, avoiding a recurrence for merely 1 patient would have required 11 patients to undergo colorectal resection instead of shaving. Our data suggest that, in patients who are treated for rectal endometriosis, colorectal resection does not improve long-term postoperative functional outcomes when compared with rectal shaving." @default.
• W2467297075 created "2016-07-22" @default.
• W2467297075 creator A5004555606 @default.
• W2467297075 creator A5028541781 @default.
• W2467297075 creator A5030165586 @default.
• W2467297075 creator A5035992529 @default.
• W2467297075 creator A5039360104 @default.
• W2467297075 creator A5046250163 @default.
• W2467297075 creator A5047623054 @default.
• W2467297075 creator A5077151564 @default.
• W2467297075 date "2016-12-01" @default.
• W2467297075 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2467297075 title "Long-term functional outcomes following colorectal resection versus shaving for rectal endometriosis" @default.
• W2467297075 cites W1585019003 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W1923654059 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W1973638124 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W1979046822 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W1989847657 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2014507120 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2017403994 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2027244513 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2028228566 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2034406012 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2036747626 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2046549547 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2057413367 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2075817276 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2079810884 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2101553224 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2102284561 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2117300470 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2117571760 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2120545985 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2130203785 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2130972100 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2132296671 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2137544525 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2140158308 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2148261679 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2157215492 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2175166988 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2176649268 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2216930190 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2273166960 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2298340450 @default.
• W2467297075 cites W2395733485 @default.
• W2467297075 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.055" @default.
• W2467297075 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27393269" @default.
• W2467297075 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2467297075 type Work @default.
• W2467297075 sameAs 2467297075 @default.
• W2467297075 citedByCount "73" @default.
• W2467297075 countsByYear W24672970752017 @default.
• W2467297075 countsByYear W24672970752018 @default.
• W2467297075 countsByYear W24672970752019 @default.
• W2467297075 countsByYear W24672970752020 @default.
• W2467297075 countsByYear W24672970752021 @default.
• W2467297075 countsByYear W24672970752022 @default.
• W2467297075 countsByYear W24672970752023 @default.
• W2467297075 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2467297075 hasAuthorship W2467297075A5004555606 @default.
• W2467297075 hasAuthorship W2467297075A5028541781 @default.
• W2467297075 hasAuthorship W2467297075A5030165586 @default.
• W2467297075 hasAuthorship W2467297075A5035992529 @default.
• W2467297075 hasAuthorship W2467297075A5039360104 @default.
• W2467297075 hasAuthorship W2467297075A5046250163 @default.
• W2467297075 hasAuthorship W2467297075A5047623054 @default.
• W2467297075 hasAuthorship W2467297075A5077151564 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConcept C2779522080 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConcept C2780120127 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConcept C2781074409 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConcept C2781112942 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConcept C523026621 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConceptScore W2467297075C126322002 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConceptScore W2467297075C141071460 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConceptScore W2467297075C2779522080 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConceptScore W2467297075C2780120127 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConceptScore W2467297075C2781074409 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConceptScore W2467297075C2781112942 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConceptScore W2467297075C523026621 @default.
• W2467297075 hasConceptScore W2467297075C71924100 @default.
• W2467297075 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2467297075 hasLocation W24672970751 @default.
• W2467297075 hasLocation W24672970752 @default.
• W2467297075 hasLocation W24672970753 @default.
• W2467297075 hasOpenAccess W2467297075 @default.
• W2467297075 hasPrimaryLocation W24672970751 @default.
• W2467297075 hasRelatedWork W1582580594 @default.
• W2467297075 hasRelatedWork W1954766992 @default.
• W2467297075 hasRelatedWork W1988645453 @default.
• W2467297075 hasRelatedWork W2003635697 @default.
• W2467297075 hasRelatedWork W2414729050 @default.
• W2467297075 hasRelatedWork W3123462835 @default.
• W2467297075 hasRelatedWork W3208449664 @default.
• W2467297075 hasRelatedWork W4210756955 @default.

• next