One-stage repair of anorectal malformations in females with vestibular fistula: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Anorectal malformations
Meta-analysis
One-stage sagittal anorectoplasty
Recto-vestibular fistula
Systematic review
Journal
Pediatric surgery international
ISSN: 1437-9813
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Surg Int
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8609169
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
accepted:
18
10
2018
pubmed:
1
11
2018
medline:
26
2
2019
entrez:
1
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Females with recto-vestibular fistula (RVF) can be managed either by one-stage sagittal anorectoplasty (SARP) or by conventional multi-stage approach with colostomy followed by SARP. Our aim was to define which approach, one-stage or multi-stage, is safer and more beneficial. Using a defined search strategy, two investigators identified all comparative studies on the mentioned procedures. The study was conducted under PRISMA guidelines. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. Data are mean ± SD. Of 649 titles/abstracts screened, 13 full-text articles were analyzed. Three studies were included (156 females). One-stage SARP was associated with increased risk of wound infection (24.3 ± 8.7%) compared to multi-stage approach (10.9 ± 2.5%; p < 0.01) and increased risk of wound dehiscence (16.2 ± 4.8% vs. 2.4 ± 1.1%, respectively; p < 0.01). The incidence of anorectal stenosis was higher following one-stage repair (33.3%) vs. multi-stage approach (10.7%; p < 0.05). No differences were found with regards to redo SARP in both groups (12.9 ± 7.3% vs. 4.8 ± 0.8%; p = ns). At follow-up, the prevalence of soiling and constipation were similar after one-stage (19.7 ± 10.3% and 29.5 ± 5.4%) and multi-stage repair (13.7 ± 8.9% and 28.7 ± 4.4%; p = ns). In females with RVF, the SARP performed without protective colostomy increases the risk of postoperative complications. However, this one-stage approach seems not to be associated with reduced fecal continence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30377757
doi: 10.1007/s00383-018-4378-2
pii: 10.1007/s00383-018-4378-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
77-85Références
Pediatr Surg Int. 2015 Sep;31(9):809-14
pubmed: 26129980
J Pediatr Surg. 2004 Apr;39(4):596-9
pubmed: 15065035
Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2016 Jan-Mar;13(1):20-5
pubmed: 27251519
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
pubmed: 15840177
Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2017 Apr-Jun;14(2):27-31
pubmed: 29511136
J Pediatr Surg. 1996 Sep;31(9):1236-40
pubmed: 8887092
J Pediatr Surg. 1992 Jan;27(1):85-8
pubmed: 1552453
J Pediatr Surg. 2002 Jun;37(6):E16
pubmed: 12037777
Tech Coloproctol. 2015 Mar;19(3):181-5
pubmed: 25609592
J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2017 Apr-Jun;22(2):87-91
pubmed: 28413302
Pediatr Surg Int. 2012 Aug;28(8):825-30
pubmed: 22821084
J Pediatr Surg. 2008 Oct;43(10):1848-52
pubmed: 18926219
Pediatr Surg Int. 2017 Jul;33(7):755-759
pubmed: 28584904
J Pediatr Surg. 2010 Jul;45(7):1505-8
pubmed: 20638533
J Pediatr Surg. 2009 Oct;44(10):1913-9
pubmed: 19853746
J Pediatr Surg. 2018 Nov;53(11):2174-2177
pubmed: 29544884
Pediatr Surg Int. 2007 Aug;23(8):737-40
pubmed: 17594106
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6
pubmed: 12956787
J Pediatr Surg. 2006 Apr;41(4):748-56; discussion 748-56
pubmed: 16567188
Curr Opin Pediatr. 2005 Jun;17(3):394-401
pubmed: 15891433
J Pediatr Surg. 2005 Oct;40(10):1521-6
pubmed: 16226976
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2007 Jul 26;2:33
pubmed: 17651510
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 15;7:10
pubmed: 17302989
J Pediatr Surg. 2001 May;36(5):795-8
pubmed: 11329592
J Pediatr Surg. 1982 Dec;17(6):796-811
pubmed: 6761417
J Pediatr Surg. 2004 Oct;39(10):1466-71
pubmed: 15486889
J Pediatr Surg. 2007 Jun;42(6):1103-6
pubmed: 17560229