Alaa Magdy

Comparative study between Delorme operation with or without postanal repair and levateroplasty in treatment of complete rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND Rectal prolapse is a distressing and socially disabling condition. controversy exists regarding the preferred surgical technique for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse. OBJECTIVE We compared Delorme operation alone or with postanal repair and levatroplasty in treating complete rectal prolapse. METHODS Consecutive patients treated for rectal prolapse at our colorectal unit were evaluated for inclusion. Participants were randomly allocated to receive Delorme operation only (GI), or Delorme operation with postanal repair and levatorplasty (GII). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was recurrence rate; secondary outcomes included improvement of constipation, incontinence, operative time, anal manometery and postoperative complications. RESULTS Eighty-two consecutive patients with rectal prolapse were randomized. There was a significant difference between the two groups with longer operative time in group II. Recurrence rate after one year was (14.28% in GI, and 2.43% in GII, respectively (P = 0.043). Constipation improved in group I & II but there was a significant difference in constipation scores postoperatively between the two groups. There was improvement in continence mechanism in both groups postoperatively but being higher in group II and this produce a significant statistical difference (0.004). Mean satisfaction score was significantly higher in group II than group I. Both groups succeed to produce a significant change in resting and squeeze pressure before & after the operation. CONCLUSIONS Delorme operation seems to be an effective procedure for treating complete rectal prolapse especially if combined with postanal repair and levatorplasty. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT01656369.

Selective non-operative management of anterior abdominal stab wounds with emphasis on the value of follow-up abdominal CT scanning

Background and aim Selective non-operative management of patients with penetrating abdominal stabs is the preferred treatment strategy. The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of non-operative management with emphasis on the value of follow-up abdominal CT scanning in management of patients with penetrating anterior abdominal stab. Patients and methods This is a retrospective chart review of stable patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds. Patients were divided in terms of initial decisions into two groups: laparotomy group and non-operative management group. Abdominal CT scan was performed for patients in the non-operative management group on admission and follow-up CT scanning was performed in cases of clinical and/or biochemical deterioration. Results The laparotomy group included 82 patients and 68.2% of them had unnecessary laparotomies. The non-operative management group comprised 97 patients and 90.7% of them did not require subsequent laparotomy. Abdominal CT scan had a sensitivity of 88.9% and specificity of 100% in detection of intra-abdominal injuries. Follow-up CT scanning detected bowel injuries missed by initial CT scan in three patients. The non-operative management group had significantly lower post-operative complication rate than the laparotomy group (4.1% vs. 18.3%), with a significantly shorter length of stay. Conclusions Non-operative management is the optimal management strategy for stable patients with penetrating anterior abdominal stab to decrease unnecessary laparotomy rates, hospital stay and costs. Follow-up abdominal CT scanning facilitated the decision making for patients selected for non-operative management and is highly sensitive in the diagnosis of patients who require subsequent exploration.

Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC): Does it have a role in colorectal tumourigenesis? A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND Despite the characterization of many aetiologic genetic changes. The specific causative factors in the development of sporadic colorectal cancer remain unclear. This study was performed to detect the possible role of Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) in developing colorectal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHOD Fresh biopsy specimens have been obtained from the colonic mucosa overlying the colorectal cancer as well as from the colon of the healthy controls. Culture, genotyping and virulence of EPEC were done using (nutrient broth culture, and PCR). Strains biochemically identified as Escherichia coli were selected from the surface of a MacConkeys plate and were serogrouped by slide agglutination tests. RESULTS From January 2011 to June 2014, 213 colorectal cancer patients (Group 1) and 248 healthy controls (Group 2) were prospectively enrolled in this study. EPEC was positive in 108 (50.7%) in group 1 and 51 (20.6%) in group 2 (P = 0.0001). A significant difference between both groups was observed regarding serotyping, genotyping (eae gene) and virulence category (P = 0.0001). A significant difference between the 2 subgroups of colorectal cancer cases was observed regarding genotyping (eae, bfb genes) and virulence category. CONCLUSION The incidence EPEC was higher significantly in patients with colorectal cancer. E. coli in patients with colorectal cancer significantly differed serotypically and genotypically from the E. coli in normal population. E. coli colonization of the colonic mucosa may be a cause colorectal cancer.

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: Patch versus simple closure

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has become an accepted way of management. Patch omentoplasty stayed for decades the main method of repair. The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic simple repair of PPU is as safe as patch omentoplasty. METHODS Since June 2005, 179 consecutive patients of PPU were treated by laparoscopic repair at our centers. We conducted a retrospective chart review in December 2012. Group I (patch group) included patients who were treated with standard patch omentoplasty. Group II (non-patch group) included patients who received simple repair without patch. RESULTS From June 2007 to Dec. 2012, 179 consecutive patients of PPU who were treated by laparoscopic repair at our centers were enrolled in this multi-center retrospective study. 108 patients belong to patch group. While 71 patients were treated with laparoscopic simple repair. Operative time was significantly shorter in group II (non patch) (p = 0.01). No patient was converted to laparotomy. There was no difference in age, gender, ASA score, surgical risk (Boeys) score, and incidence of co-morbidities. Both groups were comparable in terms of hospital stay, time to resume oral intake, postoperative complications and surgical outcomes. CONCLUSION Laparoscopic simple repair of PPU is a safe procedure compared with the traditional patch omentoplasty in presence of certain selection criteria.

Two-stage repair of low anorectal malformations in girls: is it truly a setback?

Background/purposeAnorectal malformations (ARMs) affect 1 in 4000–5000 births. Low ARMs are nowadays treated in the first stage rather than at second or third stages. However, reports suggest problems with continence in these children because of wound dehiscence and infection; thus, protective colostomy may still be recommended. Colostomies do have complications, but the question is whether these disadvantages outweigh the protective effect on wound healing after anal reconstruction. The aim of this study was to define whether two-stage repair of low ARMs in girls is truly a setback or whether it is beneficial. Patients and methodsDuring the period of June 2008–June 2012, 30 female patients suffering from low ARMs were admitted to Mansoura University Children Hospital. Their ages at the time of surgery ranged from 3 to 11 months (mean age 6.2) and they were divided into two equal groups. The fistula location was defined either anocutaneous or anovestibular according to the Pena classification. The choice of management was totally randomized; thus, patients of group A underwent a two-stage posterior sagittal anorectoplasty and group B patients underwent a one-stage posterior sagittal anorectoplasty operation. Data recorded included age, fistula location, associated anomalies, operation performed, operative time, length of hospital stay, approximate cost, and postoperative complications. ResultsA comparison of data showed that treatment of patients of group A involved more time and money and they had a longer duration of hospital stay than did patients of group B. Seven patients (47%) in group A and nine patients (60%) in group B showed postoperative complications. Wound infection occurred in three patients (20%) of group A and in eight patients (53%) of group B. More importantly, two (13%) wound disruptions occurred among the three cases with wound infection in group A, whereas six (40%) disruptions occurred among the eight patients (53%) with wound infections in group B. The incidence of redo operation in group B was found to be significantly higher than in group A. Mucosal prolapse occurred in only one patient (7%) of group B. Complications related to colostomy occurred in group A only; five patients (33%) suffered skin excoriation around the stoma and one patient (7%) showed a prolapsed distal stoma loop. Constipation was noted during follow-up in five patients (33%) of group A and in six patients (40%) of group B. ConclusionTwo-stage repair of low ARM in girls is truly beneficial, as we could perform a successful operation and achieve continence in the child regardless of the complications of colostomy, which are temporary and tolerable.