Abdominal versus perineal approach for external rectal prolapse: systematic review with meta-analysis

External rectal prolapse; SurgeryProlapso rectal externo; CirurgíaProlapse rectal extern; CirurgiaBackground 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

Does the Choice of Extraction Site During Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Change the Incidence of Incisional Hernia? Protocol for a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Various sites are used for specimen extraction in oncological minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The objective is to determine if the choice of extraction site modulates the incidence of incisional hernia (IH). METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic review will be performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL will be searched to look for original studies reporting the incidence of IH after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Studies will be excluded from the analysis if: 1) they do not report original data, 2) the outcome of interest (incidence of incisional hernia) is not clearly reported and does not allow to extrapolate and/or calculate the required data for network meta-analysis, 3) they include pediatric patients, 4) they include a patients' population with a conversion rate to laparotomy >10%, 5) they do not compare at least two different extraction sites for the operative specimen, 6) they report patients who underwent pure (and not hybrid) natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Network meta-analysis will be performed to determine the incidence of IH per extraction site. DISCUSSION: By determining which specimen extraction site leads to reduced rate of IH, this systematic review and network meta-analysis will help colorectal surgeons to choose their extraction site and reduce the morbidity and costs associated with IH. REGISTRATION: The systematic review and meta-analysis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with number CRD42021272226. HIGHLIGHTS: Various sites are used for specimen extraction in oncological minimally invasive colorectal surgery, and the choice of the site may probably modulate the incidence of incisional hernia.The present protocol aims to design a systematic review which will identify original studies comparing two extraction sites during minimally invasive colorectal surgery in terms of incidence of incisional hernia.Network meta-analysis will be performed to determine the incidence of IH per extraction site

Comment on: Prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin in the era of evolving surgical and multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We read with great interest the systematic review and meta-analysis by Detering et al.1The authors showed that positive path-ological circumferential resection margin (pCRMþ) is an importantrisk factor for increased 3-year and 5-year incidences of local recur-rence, decreased 5-year disease-free survival, decreased 5-yearoverall survival, and increased 5-year incidence of distant metasta-ses.1Therefore, in cases where CRMþis suspected on preoperativepelvic MRI (mrCRMþ), therapeutic management should attempt toinduce local tumor regression using neoadjuvant radiotherapy orchemoradiotherapy

Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer According to a Standardized MRI Classification System: A Systematic Review of the Literature

(1) Background: The classification of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is not currently standardized. The aim of this review was to evaluate pelvic LRRC according to the Beyond TME (BTME) classification system and to consider commonly associated primary tumour characteristics. (2) Methods: A systematic review of the literature prior to April 2020 was performed through electronic searches of the Science Citation Index Expanded, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases. The primary outcome was to assess the location and frequency of previously classified pelvic LRRC and translate this information into the BTME system. Secondary outcomes were assessing primary tumour characteristics. (3) Results: A total of 58 eligible studies classified 4558 sites of LRRC, most commonly found in the central compartment (18%), following anterior resection (44%), in patients with an &lsquo;advanced&rsquo; primary tumour (63%) and following neoadjuvant radiotherapy (29%). Most patients also classified had a low rectal primary tumour. The lymph node status of the primary tumour leading to LRRC was comparable, with 52% node positive versus 48% node negative tumours. (4) Conclusions: This review evaluates the largest number of LRRCs to date using a single classification system. It has also highlighted the need for standardized reporting in order to optimise perioperative treatment planning

Evaluation of sexual dysfunction in female patients presenting with faecal incontinence or defecation disorder

Purpose: Female patients with pelvic floor diseases may suffer from several sexual disorders and sexual life impairments. The aim of this manuscript was to evaluate sexual dysfunction in female patients presenting with faecal incontinence (FI) and defecation disorder (DD). Methods: A retrospective review was performed of a prospectively collected database of sexually active women referred to the pelvic floor clinic, who completed the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12) at first visit. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate and compare sexual dysfunction between patients with FI and DD and with published data on the general population. Regression analysis was used to identify predictors of sexual dysfunction and surgery. Results: Three hundred thirteen patients were included, 192 (61%) with FI and 121 (39%) with DD. The patients with DD received more non-gynaecological surgical procedures (p = 0.023). More patients with DD received surgery for their current pelvic floor disease (p < 0.001). Major sexual impairment (PISQ-12 < 30) was found in 100 patients (31.9%). The mean PISQ-12 (33.2 ± 7.2) score was by 5 points lower than those reported in the general population from PISQ-validating studies. Prior anorectal surgery (odds ratio (OR) = 15.4), partner ejaculation problems (PISQ item 11, OR = 2.5), reduced sexual arousal (item 2, OR = 2.1), and orgasm perception (item 13, OR = 2.1) were the strongest predictors of worse sexual function in patients with FI. Patients with DD were almost 15 times more likely to receive subsequent surgery (OR = 14.6, p < 0.001), whereas fear of urine leakage almost doubled the risk. Conclusions: Sexual dysfunction is prevalent among patients suffering from FI and DD, and questionnaires are useful in recognizing these patients. Subsequent surgery is more common for patients with DD compared to those with FI

The obesity paradox in beyond total mesorectal excision surgery for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

The objective is to investigate preoperative body mass index (BMI) in patients receiving beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) surgery. The primary end point is length of postoperative stay. Secondary end points are length of intensive care stay, postoperative morbidity and overall survival. BMI is the most commonly used anthropometric measurement of nutrition and studies have shown that overweight and obese patients can have improved surgical outcomes. Patients who underwent a bTME operation for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer were put into three BMI (kg/m2) groups of normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25-29.9) and obese (≥ 30) for analysis. Included are 220 consecutive patients from a single centre. The overall length of stay, in days ± standard deviation (range), for normal weight, overweight and obese patients was 21.14 ± 16.4 (6-99), 15.24 ± 4.3 (7-32) and 19.10 ± 9.8 (8-62) respectively (p = 0.002). The mean ICU length of stay was 5.40 ± 9.1 (1-69), 3.37 ± 2.4 (0-19) and 3.60 ± 2.4 (1-14), respectively (p = 0.030). There was no significant difference between the three groups in terms of postoperative morbidity or overall survival. Patients with a normal weight BMI in this cohort have a significantly longer length of stay in ICU and in hospital than overweight or obese patients. This is seen with no significant difference in morbidity or overall survival

Laparoscopic versus open hepatic resections for benign and malignant neoplasms - a meta-analysis

Background. Laparoscopic surgery for hepatic neoplasms aims to provide curative resection while minimizing complications. The present study compared. laparoscopic versus open surgery for Patients with hepatic neoplasms with regard to short-term outcomes. Methods. Comparative studies published between 1998 and 2005 were included. Evaluated endpoints were operative, functional, and adverse events. A random-effects model was used and sensitivity analysis performed to account for bias in patient selection. Results. Eight nonrandomized studies were included, reporting on 409 resections of hepatic neoplasms, of which 165 (40.3%) were laparoscopic and 244 (59.7%) were open. Operative blood loss (weighted mean difference = -123 mL; confidence interval = -179, -67 mL) and duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference = -2.6 days; confidence interval -3.8, -1.4 days) were significantly reduced after laparoscopic surgery. These findings remained consistent when considering studies matched for the presence of malignancy and segment resection. There was no difference in postoperative adverse events and extent of oncologic clearance. Conclusions. Laparoscopic resection results in reduced operative blood loss and earlier recovery with oncologic clearance comparable with open surgery. When performed by experienced surgeons in selected patients it may be a safe and feasible option. Because of the potential of significant bias arising from the included studies, further randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to confirm this bias and to assess long-term, survival rate

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing adverse events and functional outcomes of different pouch designs after restorative proctocolectomy

Aim There is no consensus as to which ileoanal pouch design provides better outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy. This study compares different pouch designs. Method A systematic review of the literature was performed. A random effects meta-analytical model was used to compare adverse events and functional outcome. Results Thirty comparative studies comparing J, W, S and K pouch designs were included. No significant differences were identified between the different pouch designs with regard to anastomotic dehiscence, anastomotic stricture, pelvic sepsis, wound infection, pouch fistula, pouch ischaemia, perioperative haemorrhage, small bowel obstruction, pouchitis and sexual dysfunction. The W and K designs resulted in fewer cases of pouch failure compared with the J and S designs. J pouch construction resulted in a smaller maximum pouch volume compared with W and K pouches. Stool frequency per 24 h and during daytime was higher following a J pouch than W, S or K constructions. The J design resulted in increased faecal urgency and seepage during daytime compared with the K design. The use of protective pads during daytime and night-time was greater with a J pouch compared to S or K. The use of antidiarrhoeal medication was greater after a J reservoir than a W reservoir. Difficulty in pouch evacuation requiring intubation was higher with an S pouch than with W or J pouches. Conclusion Despite its ease of construction and comparable complication rates, the J pouch is associated with higher pouch failure rates and worse function. Patient characteristics, technical factors and surgical expertise should be considered when choosing pouch design