Abdominal versus perineal approach for external rectal prolapse: systematic review with meta-analysis.
Journal
BJS open
ISSN: 2474-9842
Titre abrégé: BJS Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 03 2022
08 03 2022
Historique:
received:
06
12
2021
revised:
21
01
2022
accepted:
25
01
2022
entrez:
7
4
2022
pubmed:
8
4
2022
medline:
12
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
External rectal prolapse (ERP) is a debilitating condition in which surgery plays an important role. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of abdominal approaches (AA) and perineal approaches (PA) to ERP. This was a PRISMA-compliant systematic review with meta-analysis. Studies published between 1990 and 2021 were retrieved. The primary endpoint was recurrence at the last available follow-up. Secondary endpoints included factors associated with recurrence and function. All studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane tool. Fifteen studies involving 1611 patients (AA = 817; PA = 794) treated for ERP were included, three of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 114 patients (AA = 54; PA = 60)). Duration of follow-up ranged from 12 to 82 months. Recurrence in non-randomized studies was 7.7 per cent in AA versus 20.1 per cent in PA (odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.17 to 0.50; P < 0.001, I2 = 45 per cent). In RCTs, there was no significant difference (9.8 per cent versus 16.3 per cent, AA versus PA (OR 0.82, 95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 2.37; P = 0.72, I2 = 0.0 per cent)). Age at surgery and duration of follow-up were risk factors for recurrence. Following AA, the recurrence rates were 10.1 per cent and 6.2 per cent in patients aged 65 years and older and less than 65 years of age, respectively (effect size [e.s.] 7.7, 95 per cent c.i. 4.5 to 11.5). Following PA, rates were 27 per cent and 16.3 per cent (e.s. 20.1, 95 per cent c.i. 13 to 28.2). Extending follow-up to at least 40 months increased the likelihood of recurrence. The median duration of hospital stay was 4.9 days after PA versus 7.2 days after AA. Overall, incontinence was less likely after AA (OR 0.32), but constipation occurred more frequently (OR 1.68). Most studies were retrospective, and several outcomes from RCTs were not consistent with those observed in non-RCTs. The overall risk of recurrence of ERP appears to be higher with PA versus AA. Incontinence is less frequent after AA but at the cost of increased constipation. Age at surgery and duration of follow-up are associated with increased risk of recurrence, which warrants adequate reporting of future studies on this topic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
External rectal prolapse (ERP) is a debilitating condition in which surgery plays an important role. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of abdominal approaches (AA) and perineal approaches (PA) to ERP.
METHODS
This was a PRISMA-compliant systematic review with meta-analysis. Studies published between 1990 and 2021 were retrieved. The primary endpoint was recurrence at the last available follow-up. Secondary endpoints included factors associated with recurrence and function. All studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane tool.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies involving 1611 patients (AA = 817; PA = 794) treated for ERP were included, three of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 114 patients (AA = 54; PA = 60)). Duration of follow-up ranged from 12 to 82 months. Recurrence in non-randomized studies was 7.7 per cent in AA versus 20.1 per cent in PA (odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.17 to 0.50; P < 0.001, I2 = 45 per cent). In RCTs, there was no significant difference (9.8 per cent versus 16.3 per cent, AA versus PA (OR 0.82, 95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 2.37; P = 0.72, I2 = 0.0 per cent)). Age at surgery and duration of follow-up were risk factors for recurrence. Following AA, the recurrence rates were 10.1 per cent and 6.2 per cent in patients aged 65 years and older and less than 65 years of age, respectively (effect size [e.s.] 7.7, 95 per cent c.i. 4.5 to 11.5). Following PA, rates were 27 per cent and 16.3 per cent (e.s. 20.1, 95 per cent c.i. 13 to 28.2). Extending follow-up to at least 40 months increased the likelihood of recurrence. The median duration of hospital stay was 4.9 days after PA versus 7.2 days after AA. Overall, incontinence was less likely after AA (OR 0.32), but constipation occurred more frequently (OR 1.68). Most studies were retrospective, and several outcomes from RCTs were not consistent with those observed in non-RCTs.
CONCLUSION
The overall risk of recurrence of ERP appears to be higher with PA versus AA. Incontinence is less frequent after AA but at the cost of increased constipation. Age at surgery and duration of follow-up are associated with increased risk of recurrence, which warrants adequate reporting of future studies on this topic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35390136
pii: 6564775
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac018
pmc: PMC8989040
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.
Références
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48
pubmed: 13655060
ANZ J Surg. 2019 Jun;89(6):E231-E235
pubmed: 31083789
Updates Surg. 2021 Oct;73(5):1819-1828
pubmed: 34138448
Dis Colon Rectum. 2017 Feb;60(2):178-186
pubmed: 28059914
Surg Endosc. 2011 Aug;25(8):2699-702
pubmed: 21479778
Br J Surg. 2020 Jun;107(7):785-787
pubmed: 32191340
Tech Coloproctol. 2018 Dec;22(12):919-931
pubmed: 30554284
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Jul;15(7):858-68
pubmed: 23461778
Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo. 2004 Aug;59(4):168-71
pubmed: 15361980
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Aug;18(8):811-4
pubmed: 27481719
Dis Colon Rectum. 1999 May;42(5):655-60
pubmed: 10344689
Dis Colon Rectum. 2001 Jul;44(7):915-9
pubmed: 11496067
Ochsner J. 2007 Spring;7(1):24-32
pubmed: 21603476
World J Surg. 2010 May;34(5):1116-22
pubmed: 20127331
Ann Surg Treat Res. 2014 May;86(5):249-55
pubmed: 24851226
Indian J Surg. 2015 Dec;77(Suppl 3):1121-5
pubmed: 27011522
Dis Colon Rectum. 1994 May;37(5):456-60
pubmed: 8181407
Dis Colon Rectum. 1999 Apr;42(4):460-6; discussion 466-9
pubmed: 10215045
Acta Chir Iugosl. 2012;59(2):21-4
pubmed: 23373354
Ann Hum Genet. 1956 May;20(4):309-11
pubmed: 13314400
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1999 Jun;9(3):235-8
pubmed: 10414538
Surg Radiol Anat. 2005 Dec;27(5):414-9
pubmed: 16136275
Br J Surg. 1994 Feb;81(2):302-4
pubmed: 8156369
Am Surg. 2013 Jul;79(7):686-92
pubmed: 23816001
Br J Surg. 2020 Oct;107(11):1440-1449
pubmed: 32395848
BMC Surg. 2019 Jan 3;19(1):1
pubmed: 30606166
Arch Surg. 2005 Jan;140(1):63-73
pubmed: 15655208
Colorectal Dis. 2017 Jan;19(1):50-57
pubmed: 27225971
Am J Surg. 2009 Mar;197(3):418-23
pubmed: 19245926
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Colorectal Dis. 2009 May;11(4):410-9
pubmed: 18637923
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jun;134:178-189
pubmed: 33789819
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
Dis Colon Rectum. 2017 Nov;60(11):1121-1131
pubmed: 28991074
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018 Dec;403(8):991-998
pubmed: 30415286