Catastrophic appendicitis operation, successful repair in tertiary limited resources hospital: A case report

Syahputra, Dian Adi; Isa, Munthadar M.; Jailani, Muhammad

doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2020.12.034

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, postoperative spondylitis and intra-abdominal abscess are the potential complications of suture rectopexy, requiring long-term management [ 17 , 52 ]. Consequentially, the inflammation of the appendix after mesh rectopexy warrants management with ileostomy covering, appendectomy, and mesh excision [ 53 ]. Similarly, ileostomy covering and anterior resection are the required treatment approaches for patients who develop rectal mesh fistulation, after mesh rectopexy [ 17 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kumari,

MadhuBabu,

Vaidya

et al. 2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contemporary literature provides conflicting evidence regarding the precedence of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy over laparoscopic suture rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of mesh and suture rectopexy to improve the surgical management of complete rectal prolapse. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to extract studies based on mesh versus suture rectopexy and published from 2001 to 2023. The articles of interest were obtained from PubMed Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Journal Storage (JSTOR), Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes included rectal prolapse recurrence, constipation improvement, and operative time. The secondary endpoints included the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay duration, mortality, overall postoperative complications, and surgical site infection. A statistically significant low recurrence of rectal prolapse (odds ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.80; p=0.009) and longer mean operative duration (mean difference: 27.05, 95% CI 18.86-35.24; p<0.00001) were observed in patients with mesh rectopexy versus suture rectopexy. Both study groups, however, had no significant differences in constipation improvement and all secondary endpoints (all p>0.05). The laparoscopic mesh rectopexy was associated with a low postoperative rectal prolapse recurrence and a longer operative duration compared to laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Prospective randomized controlled trials should further evaluate mesh and suture rectopexy approaches for postoperative outcomes to inform the surgical management of complete rectal prolapse.

show abstract