Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
IRIS
: Compared to standardized minimally invasive colorectal procedures, there is considerable perioperative heterogeneity in loop ileostomy reversal. This study aimed to investigate the current perioperative practice and technical variations of loop ileostomy reversal following rectal cancer surgery. A nationwide online survey was conducted among members of the Italian Society of ColoRectal Surgery (SICCR). A link to the questionnaire was sent via mail. The survey consisted of 31 questions concerning the main procedural steps and application of the ERAS protocol after loop ileostomy reversal. Overall, 219 participants completed the survey. One respondent in four used a combination of water-soluble contrast studies (WSCS) and digital rectal examination to assess the integrity of the anastomosis before ileostomy closure. Conversely, 17.8% of them used either only WSCS or only endoscopy. Surgeons routinely perform hand-sewn or stapled anastomoses in 45.2% and 54.8% of the cases, respectively. Side-to-side antiperistaltic stapled anastomosis was the most performed anastomosis (36%). Most surgeons declared that they have never used prostheses for abdominal wall closure (64%), whereas 35% preferred retromuscular mesh placement in selected cases only. Forty-six respondents (66.7%) reported using interrupted stitches for skin closure, while 65 (29.7%) a purse-string suture. Furthermore, skin approximation at the stoma site using open methods was significantly more common among surgeons with greater experience in ileostomy reversal (p = 0.031). Overall, a good compliance with the ERAS protocol was found. However, colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to follow the ERAS pathway than general surgeons (p < 0.05). Surgeons use different anastomotic techniques for ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery. Based on current evidence, purse-string skin closure and ERAS pathway should be implemented, while the role of mesh prophylactic strategy needs to be explored further.
: Compared to standardized minimally invasive colorectal procedures, there is considerable perioperative heterogeneity in loop ileostomy reversal. This study aimed to investigate the current perioperative practice and technical variations of loop ileostomy reversal following rectal cancer surgery. A nationwide online survey was conducted among members of the Italian Society of ColoRectal Surgery (SICCR). A link to the questionnaire was sent via mail. The survey consisted of 31 questions concerning the main procedural steps and application of the ERAS protocol after loop ileostomy reversal. Overall, 219 participants completed the survey. One respondent in four used a combination of water-soluble contrast studies (WSCS) and digital rectal examination to assess the integrity of the anastomosis before ileostomy closure. Conversely, 17.8% of them used either only WSCS or only endoscopy. Surgeons routinely perform hand-sewn or stapled anastomoses in 45.2% and 54.8% of the cases, respectively. Side-to-side antiperistaltic stapled anastomosis was the most performed anastomosis (36%). Most surgeons declared that they have never used prostheses for abdominal wall closure (64%), whereas 35% preferred retromuscular mesh placement in selected cases only. Forty-six respondents (66.7%) reported using interrupted stitches for skin closure, while 65 (29.7%) a purse-string suture. Furthermore, skin approximation at the stoma site using open methods was significantly more common among surgeons with greater experience in ileostomy reversal (p = 0.031). Overall, a good compliance with the ERAS protocol was found. However, colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to follow the ERAS pathway than general surgeons (p < 0.05). Surgeons use different anastomotic techniques for ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery. Based on current evidence, purse-string skin closure and ERAS pathway should be implemented, while the role of mesh prophylactic strategy needs to be explored further.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/987625
Citazioni
ND
ND
ND
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 589/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.
