-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women. About 40% of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime, with the proportion expected to rise in line with an...
BACKGROUND
Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women. About 40% of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime, with the proportion expected to rise in line with an ageing population. Women experience a variety of troublesome symptoms as a consequence of prolapse, including a feeling of 'something coming down' into the vagina, pain, urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms and sexual difficulties. Treatment for prolapse includes surgery, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and vaginal pessaries. Vaginal pessaries are passive mechanical devices designed to support the vagina and hold the prolapsed organs back in the anatomically correct position. The most commonly used pessaries are made from polyvinyl-chloride, polythene, silicone or latex. Pessaries are frequently used by clinicians with high numbers of clinicians offering a pessary as first-line treatment for prolapse. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2003 and last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations of this intervention.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 January 2020). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the authors of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials which included a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse in at least one arm of the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and carried out GRADE assessments with arbitration from a third review author if necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies involving a total of 478 women with various stages of prolapse, all of which took place in high-income countries. In one trial, only six of the 113 recruited women consented to random assignment to an intervention and no data are available for those six women. We could not perform any meta-analysis because each of the trials addressed a different comparison. None of the trials reported data about perceived resolution of prolapse symptoms or about psychological outcome measures. All studies reported data about perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms. Generally, the trials were at high risk of performance bias, due to lack of blinding, and low risk of selection bias. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for imprecision resulting from the low numbers of women participating in the trials. Pessary versus no treatment: at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain about the effect of pessaries compared with no treatment on perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms (mean difference (MD) in questionnaire scores -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.61 to 0.55; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.09; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In this comparison we did not find any evidence relating to prolapse-specific quality of life or to the number of women experiencing adverse events (abnormal vaginal bleeding or de novo voiding difficulty). Pessary versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT): at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain if there is a difference between pessaries and PFMT in terms of women's perceived improvement in prolapse symptoms (MD -9.60, 95% CI -22.53 to 3.33; 137 women; low-certainty evidence), prolapse-specific quality of life (MD -3.30, 95% CI -8.70 to 15.30; 1 study; 116 women; low-certainty evidence), or cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -2.30, 95% -5.20 to 0.60; 1 study; 48 women; low-certainty evidence). Pessaries may result in a large increase in risk of adverse events compared with PFMT (RR 75.25, 95% CI 4.70 to 1205.45; 1 study; 97 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included increased vaginal discharge, and/or increased urinary incontinence and/or erosion or irritation of the vaginal walls. Pessary plus PFMT versus PFMT alone: at 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably leads to more women perceiving improvement in their prolapse symptoms compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.94; 1 study; 260 women; moderate-certainty evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably improves women's prolapse-specific quality of life compared with PFMT alone (median (interquartile range (IQR)) POPIQ score: pessary plus PFMT 0.3 (0 to 22.2); 132 women; PFMT only 8.9 (0 to 64.9); 128 women; P = 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence). Pessary plus PFMT may slightly increase the risk of abnormal vaginal bleeding compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.91; 1 study; 260 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if pessary plus PFMT has any effect on the risk of de novo voiding difficulty compared with PFMT alone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.19; 1 study; 189 women; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain if pessaries improve pelvic organ prolapse symptoms for women compared with no treatment or PFMT but pessaries in addition to PFMT probably improve women's pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and prolapse-specific quality of life. However, there may be an increased risk of adverse events with pessaries compared to PFMT. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure clinically important outcomes such as prolapse specific quality of life and resolution of prolapse symptoms. The review found two relevant economic evaluations. Of these, one assessed the cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment, expectant management and surgical procedures, and the other compared pessary treatment to PFMT.
Topics: Bias; Female; Humans; Muscle Strength; Pelvic Floor; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Pessaries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Prolapse; Urethral Diseases; Urinary Bladder Diseases; Uterine Prolapse
PubMed: 33207004
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004010.pub4 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Dec 2020Rectal prolapse is an uncommon but debilitating pelvic floor disorder that significantly decreases the quality of life of affected patients. Perineal stapled prolapse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Rectal prolapse is an uncommon but debilitating pelvic floor disorder that significantly decreases the quality of life of affected patients. Perineal stapled prolapse resection is a relatively new perineal approach that offers an promising alternative technique in the surgical management of rectal prolapse. It appears to be a simple, reproducible and efficient method. However, long-term outcomes are limited. The aims of this review are to assess the safety and effectiveness of perineal stapled prolapse resection in the management of rectal prolapse.
METHOD
A systematic review of all articles describing this approach was searched using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Included in this review were all randomized and nonrandomized prospective and retrospective studies reporting patients (aged 16 years and older) with complete rectal prolapse who underwent perineal stapled prolapse resection for the surgical treatment of the rectal prolapse.
RESULTS
A total of 408 patients across 20 articles were included. There were 58 cases of recurrence out of 368 patients over a median length of follow-up of 18 months (interquartile range 12-34 months). The total weighted overall recurrence was 12%. There were 51 cases of postoperative complications in 350 cases, bleeding being the most common complication.
CONCLUSION
The recurrence rate is comparable to those of the well-established Altemeier and Delorme procedures. However, given the heterogeneity of studies and variations in lengths of follow-up, further randomized prospective studies are needed to adequately compare this technique against other procedures for complete rectal prolapse.
Topics: Humans; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Rectal Prolapse; Rectum; Recurrence; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32865320
DOI: 10.1111/codi.15338 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Jun 2023Rectal prolapse is considered rare in men but the prevalence can be high in certain populations. It is unclear which surgical approach offers lower recurrence rates and... (Review)
Review
AIM
Rectal prolapse is considered rare in men but the prevalence can be high in certain populations. It is unclear which surgical approach offers lower recurrence rates and better functional outcomes in men. The aim of this work was to determine the recurrence rates, complications and functional outcomes after prolapse surgery in men.
METHOD
The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus databases were systematically searched to identify studies on outcomes following surgical management of full-thickness rectal prolapse in men (over 18 years of age) published between 1951 and September 2022. Outcomes of interest included recurrence rate after surgery, bowel function, urinary function, sexual function and postoperative complications.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies involving 1751 men were included. Two papers focused exclusively on men. Twelve studies employed a mixture of abdominal approaches, ten employed perineal approaches and six compared both. The recurrence rate varied across studies, ranging from 0% to 34%. Sexual and urinary function were poorly reported, but the incidence of dysfunction appears low.
CONCLUSION
The outcomes of rectal prolapse surgery in men are poorly studied with small sample sizes and variable outcomes reported. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific repair approach based on the recurrence rate and functional outcomes. Further studies are required to identify the optimal surgical approach for rectal prolapse in men.
Topics: Male; Humans; Adolescent; Adult; Rectal Prolapse; Defecation; Postoperative Complications; Recurrence; Perineum; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36847704
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16534 -
BJS Open Mar 2022External 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Constipation; Humans; Length of Stay; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Prolapse; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35390136
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac018 -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery Sep 2019Rectal prolapse is a relatively common condition in infants and young children with a multifactorial etiology. Despite its prevalence, there remains clinical equipoise...
PURPOSE
Rectal prolapse is a relatively common condition in infants and young children with a multifactorial etiology. Despite its prevalence, there remains clinical equipoise with respect to secondary treatment in pediatric surgery literature. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate methods of secondary treatment currently used to treat rectal prolapse in children.
METHODS
We searched Pubmed, Medline, and Scopus with the terms "rectal prolapse" and "children" for papers published from 1990 to April 2017. Papers satisfying strict criteria were analyzed for patient demographics, intervention, efficacy, and complications. Procedures were grouped by like type. Pooled success rates were calculated.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies documenting 907 patients were included. Injection sclerotherapy had an overall initial success rate of 79.5%. Ethyl alcohol seemed the best sclerosing agent due to a high first-injection success rate, low complication rate, and ready accessibility. Several perineal repairs were found, with operative success rates ranging from 60.8%-100%. Laparoscopic rectopexy with mesh was the most commonly reported transabdominal procedure and had an overall success rate of 96.1%. Postoperative complications from all procedures were comparable.
CONCLUSION
Though many secondary treatment options have been reported for rectal prolapse, sclerotherapy and laparoscopic rectopexy predominate in contemporary literature and appear to have high success and low complication rates.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
IV.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Infant; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Prolapse; Sclerotherapy
PubMed: 30905414
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.03.002 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2022Pediatric rectal prolapse is a common issue in clinical practice. Among various managements, sclerotherapy is an important method to successfully treat pediatric rectal...
BACKGROUND
Pediatric rectal prolapse is a common issue in clinical practice. Among various managements, sclerotherapy is an important method to successfully treat pediatric rectal prolapse, especially for the first injection. The knowledge of the first injection of sclerotherapy can be revealed by a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search and a meta-analysis for the retrospective clinical studies of sclerotherapy in pediatric rectal prolapse. The comparison between remission and recurrence after the first injection of sclerotherapy was performed to find if the first injection of sclerotherapy can treat rectal prolapse completely. After a restricted selection, 17 studies involving 1,091 pediatric rectal prolapse subjects with sclerotherapy were enrolled in a variety of classifications of injection agents. The focused outcome was to check whether the first injection of sclerotherapy can achieve a remission status. The meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
Among the subjects receiving sclerotherapy, the meta-analysis favors the remission status after receiving the first injection of sclerotherapy. The meta-analysis results showed significant remission tests for the overall effect and significant heterogeneities in odds ratio and the fixed-effects model. The significant therapeutic effects remained, however, even after testing in the relative risk and the random-effects model.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite significant heterogeneity and relatively low quality of evidence, the first injection of sclerotherapy may conceivably demonstrate therapeutic effects to help the patients of pediatric rectal prolapse achieve a remission status.
PubMed: 35284492
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.835235 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Dec 2023Rectal prolapse is a distressing condition for patients and no consensus exists on optimal surgical management. We compared outcomes of two common perineal operations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rectal prolapse is a distressing condition for patients and no consensus exists on optimal surgical management. We compared outcomes of two common perineal operations (Delorme's and Altemeier's) used in the treatment of rectal prolapse.
METHODS
A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. Peri- and post-operative outcomes following Delorme's and Altemeier's procedures were extracted. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate, anastomotic dehiscence rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were total operative time, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay and coloanal anastomotic stricture formation. Revman 5.3 was used to perform all statistical analysis.
RESULTS
Ten studies with 605 patients were selected; 286 underwent Altemeier's procedure (standalone), 39 had Altemeier's with plasty (perineoplasty or levatoroplasty), and 280 had Delorme's. Recurrence rate [OR: 0.66; 95% CI [0.44-0.99], P = 0.05] was significantly lower and anastomotic dehiscence [RD: 0.05; 95% CI [0.00-0.09], P = 0.03] was significantly higher in the Altemeier's group. However, sub group analysis of Altemeier's with plasty failed to show significant differences in these outcomes compared with the Delorme's procedure. Length of hospital stay was significantly more following an Altemeier's operation compared with Delorme's [MD: 3.05, 95% CI [0.95 - 5.51], P = 0.004]. No significant difference was found in total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, coloanal anastomotic stricture formation and mortality rates between the two approaches.
CONCLUSIONS
A direct comparison of two common perineal procedures used in the treatment of rectal prolapse demonstrated that the Altemeier's approach was associated with better outcomes. Future, well-designed high quality RCTs with long-term follow up are needed to corroborate our findings.
Topics: Humans; Rectal Prolapse; Constriction, Pathologic; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Blood Loss, Surgical; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38041773
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03181-z -
Techniques in Coloproctology Feb 2022Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for rectal prolapse. Both synthetic and biologic mesh are used. No consensus exists on the preferred... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for rectal prolapse. Both synthetic and biologic mesh are used. No consensus exists on the preferred type of mesh material. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish an overview of the current literature on mesh-related complications and recurrence after VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh to aid evidence-based decision making in preferred mesh material.
METHODS
A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane was performed (from inception until September 2020). Studies evaluating patients who underwent VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh were eligible. The MINORS score was used for quality assessment.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were eligible after qualitative assessment. Eleven studies reported on mesh-related complications including 4001 patients treated with synthetic mesh and 762 treated with biologic mesh. The incidence of mesh-related complications ranged between 0 and 2.4% after synthetic versus 0-0.7% after biologic VMR. Synthetic mesh studies showed a pooled incidence of mesh-related complications of 1.0% (95% CI 0.5-1.7). Data of biologic mesh studies could not be pooled. Twenty-nine studies reported on the risk of recurrence in 2371 synthetic mesh patients and 602 biologic mesh patients. The risk of recurrence varied between 1.1 and 18.8% for synthetic VMR versus 0-15.4% for biologic VMR. Cumulative incidence of recurrence was found to be 6.1% (95% CI 4.3-8.1) and 5.8% (95% CI 2.9-9.6), respectively. The clinical and statistical heterogeneity was high.
CONCLUSIONS
No definitive conclusions on preferred mesh type can be made due to the quality of the included studies with high heterogeneity amongst them.
Topics: Biological Products; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Prolapse; Rectum; Recurrence; Surgical Mesh; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34812970
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-021-02534-4 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Aug 2021Ventral mesh rectopexy is frequently performed as a means of improving the quality of life for sufferers of rectal prolapse. The minimally invasive approach is highly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Ventral mesh rectopexy is frequently performed as a means of improving the quality of life for sufferers of rectal prolapse. The minimally invasive approach is highly desirable but can be technically difficult to achieve in the narrow confines of the pelvis. The robotic platform is becoming a more common means of overcoming these difficulties, but evidence of an objective benefit over standard laparoscopy is scarce. This study seeks to review and analyse the data comparing outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.
METHOD
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for papers comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Comparable data was pooled for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Six studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Sample sizes were relatively small, and only two of the studies were randomised. Pooled analysis was possible for data on operating time, complication rates, conversion rates and length of stay in hospital. This showed a non-significant trend towards longer operating times and a statistically significant reduction in length of stay after robotic procedures. There was no significant difference in complication and conversion rates.
CONCLUSION
The frequent finding of longer operating time for robotic surgery was not confirmed in this study. Shorter length of stay in hospital was seen, with other post-operative outcomes showing no significant difference. More data is needed with cost-benefit analyses to show whether the robotic platform is justified.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Quality of Life; Rectal Prolapse; Rectum; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Surgical Mesh; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33718972
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-03904-y -
BJS Open Jan 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR).
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on the recurrence rates of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) or intussusception (IS) after SR and VMR. Results were pooled and procedures compared; a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients with CRP and IS who underwent VMR using biological versus synthetic meshes. A meta-analysis of studies comparing SR and VMR was undertaken. The Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies score, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to assess the quality of studies.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies with 976 patients were included in the SR group and 31 studies with 1605 patients in the VMR group; among these studies, five were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall, in patients with CRP, the recurrence rate was 8.6 per cent after SR and 3.7 per cent after VMR (P < 0.001). However, in patients with IS treated using VMR, the recurrence rate was 9.7 per cent. Recurrence rates after VMR did not differ with use of biological or synthetic mesh in patients treated for CRP (4.1 versus 3.6 per cent; P = 0.789) and or IS (11.4 versus 11.0 per cent; P = 0.902). Results from the meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, and the difference in recurrence rates between SR and VMR groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.76).
CONCLUSION
Although the systematic review showed a higher recurrence rate after SR than VMR for treatment of CRP, this result was not confirmed by meta-analysis. Therefore, robust RCTs comparing SR and biological VMR are required.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Intussusception; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Prolapse; Recurrence; Surgical Mesh; Sutures
PubMed: 33609376
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa037