Outcome of anal symptoms and anorectal function following two obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS)-a nested case-controlled study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) is a significant risk factor for developing anal incontinence. It can therefore be hypothesised that recurrent OASI in a subsequent delivery may predispose women to further anal sphincter dysfunction. METHODS: A nested case-controlled study based on data collected prospectively between 2006 and 2019. Women matched for age and ethnicity, with a history of one OASI and no sphincter damage in a subsequent delivery (control) were compared to women sustaining a second OASI. Assessment was carried out using the St Mark's score (SMIS), anorectal manometry and endoanal ultrasound scan (findings quantified using the modified Starck score). RESULTS: Eighty-four women were included and equally distributed between the two groups, who were followed up 12 weeks postnatally. No difference in SMIS scores was found. Maximum resting pressure (MRP, mmHg) and maximum squeeze pressure (MSP, mmHg) were significantly reduced in the study group. Median (IQR) MRP in the study group was 40.0 (31.3-54.0) versus 46.0 (39.3-61.5) in the control group (p = 0.030). Median (IQR) MSP was 73.0 (58.3-93.5) in the study group versus 92.5 (70.5-110.8) (p = 0.006) in the control group. A significant difference (p = 0.002) was found in the modified Starck score between the study group (median 0.0 [IQR 0.0-6.0]) and control group (median 0.0 [IQR 0.0-0.0]). CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that women with recurrent OASI do not have significant anorectal symptoms compared to those with one OASI 12 weeks after delivery, but worse anal sphincter function and integrity. Therefore, on long-term follow-up, symptoms may possibly develop. This information will be useful when counselling women in a subsequent pregnancy

A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set

INTRODUCTION: We assessed outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse and explored the relationships between outcome reporting quality with journal impact factor, year of publication, and methodological quality. METHODS: We searched the bibliographical databases from inception to October 2017. Two researchers independently selected studies and assessed study characteristics, methodological quality (Jadad criteria; range 1-5), and outcome reporting quality Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate (MOMENT) criteria; range 1-6], and extracted relevant data. We used a multivariate linear regression to assess associations between outcome reporting quality and other variables. RESULTS: Eighty publications reporting data from 10,924 participants were included. Seventeen different surgical interventions were evaluated. One hundred different outcomes and 112 outcome measures were reported. Outcomes were inconsistently reported across trials; for example, 43 trials reported anatomical treatment success rates (12 outcome measures), 25 trials reported quality of life (15 outcome measures) and eight trials reported postoperative pain (seven outcome measures). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a relationship between outcome reporting quality with methodological quality (β = 0.412; P = 0.018). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality with impact factor (β = 0.078; P = 0.306), year of publication (β = 0.149; P = 0.295), study size (β = 0.008; P = 0.961) and commercial funding (β = -0.013; P = 0.918). CONCLUSIONS: Anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse trials report many different outcomes and outcome measures and often neglect to report important safety outcomes. Developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set will help address these issues