Functional results and outcome of STARR with 2 PPH versus STARR with CCS30: LTP82

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


Aim:The purpose of the study was to evaluate clinical and functional outcome after STARR with double PPH versus STARR with Contour CCS30.Method:From January to December 2007 we treated 30 patients. Fifteen treated with double PPH01 staplers and 15 treated using new CCS30 contour. Resected specimens were measured with respect to average surface and volume. All patients have been evaluated at 24 months with clinical examination, anorectal manometry and endoanal ultrasonography.Results:Differences in average surface and volume were statistically significant. No statistical differences were found in hospital stay, postoperative pain and early complications. As regards the long-term follow-up, an overall satisfactory rate of 83.3% (25/30) was achieved. Endoanal ultrasonography performed 1 year following surgery was considered normal in both of the studied groups. Mean restingpressure was higher than thepreoperative value. Resting and squeezepressures were lower in those patients not satisfied, but data are not statistically significant. Despite the difference noted in resected volume and surface, no differences were noted in rectal compliance.Conclusion:The new Contour CCS30 could help to increase the amount of the resected tissue without differences in clinical outcome or manometric and ultrasonographic results compared to the STARR with two PPH-01 technique.

    loading  Loading Related Articles