-
Current Status and Role of Artificial Intelligence in Anorectal Diseases and Pelvic Floor Disorders.JSLS : Journal of the Society of... 2024Anorectal diseases and pelvic floor disorders are prevalent among the general population. Patients may present with overlapping symptoms, delaying diagnosis, and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anorectal diseases and pelvic floor disorders are prevalent among the general population. Patients may present with overlapping symptoms, delaying diagnosis, and lowering quality of life. Treating physicians encounter numerous challenges attributed to the complex nature of pelvic anatomy, limitations of diagnostic techniques, and lack of available resources. This article is an overview of the current state of artificial intelligence (AI) in tackling the difficulties of managing benign anorectal disorders and pelvic floor disorders.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched the PubMed database to identify all potentially relevant studies published from January 2000 to August 2023. Search queries were built using the following terms: AI, machine learning, deep learning, benign anorectal disease, pelvic floor disorder, fecal incontinence, obstructive defecation, anal fistula, rectal prolapse, and anorectal manometry. Malignant anorectal articles and abstracts were excluded. Data from selected articles were analyzed.
RESULTS
139 articles were found, 15 of which met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most common AI module was convolutional neural network. researchers were able to develop AI modules to optimize imaging studies for pelvis, fistula, and abscess anatomy, facilitated anorectal manometry interpretation, and improved high-definition anoscope use. None of the modules were validated in an external cohort.
CONCLUSION
There is potential for AI to enhance the management of pelvic floor and benign anorectal diseases. Ongoing research necessitates the use of multidisciplinary approaches and collaboration between physicians and AI programmers to tackle pressing challenges.
Topics: Humans; Pelvic Floor Disorders; Artificial Intelligence; Rectal Diseases; Anus Diseases; Manometry; Fecal Incontinence
PubMed: 38910957
DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2024.00007 -
CVIR Endovascular May 2024Internal hemorrhoids (IH) is a common medical condition that can result in morbidity secondary to bleeding and discomfort. Treatment for IH has traditionally consisted... (Review)
Review
Common design and data elements on rectal artery embolization for treatment of symptomatic internal hemorrhoidal disease: an interactive systematic review of clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
Internal hemorrhoids (IH) is a common medical condition that can result in morbidity secondary to bleeding and discomfort. Treatment for IH has traditionally consisted of dietary and conservative medical management, focal treatments including banding and sclerotherapy or hemorrhoidectomy. Recently, rectal artery embolization (RAE) has been studied as a potential treatment for bleeding predominant IH. We performed a common design and data element analysis of studies that report on RAE.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a qualitative systematic literature review for rectal artery embolization (RAE) for symptomatic hemorrhoidal disease. The screening process involved five online databases (PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, DOAJ, and Scopus). Additionally, ClinicalTrials.gov was examined for active, unpublished completed studies. The initial search yielded 2000 studies, with 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria after screening and assessment. The included studies comprised one RCT, one case series, one pilot study and 12 cohort studies.
RESULTS
The population analysis revealed a male predominance across all studies, with varying cohort sizes. The baseline Goligher hemorrhoid grade was utilized in 80% of studies. The majority (73.3%) employed a transfemoral approach, and coils were the primary embolic material in 60% of studies, 26.6% were combination of coils and particles, and 6.6% were particles only. Patient selection criteria highlighted RAE's applicability for high surgical risk patients and those with anemia, chronic hematochezia, or treatment-refractory cases. Exclusion criteria emphasized factors such as previous surgeries, colorectal cancer, rectal prolapse, acute hemorrhoidal complications, and contrast allergy. Study designs varied, with cohort studies being the most common (12/15; 80%). Procedural details included the use of metallic coils and detachable micro-coils, with a high technical success rate reported in most studies ranging from 72 to 100%. The follow-up ranged from 1 to 18 months. The majority of studies reported no major immediate or post-procedural complications.
CONCLUSION
While all studies focused on RAE as a treatment for IH, there was a great degree of heterogeneity among included studies, particularly regarding inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, outcomes measures and timeframe. Future literature should attempt to standardize these design elements to help facilitate secondary analyses and increase understanding of RAE as a treatment option.
PubMed: 38733497
DOI: 10.1186/s42155-024-00458-2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2024(1) Background: Rectal prolapse is a benign condition that mainly affects females and the elderly. The most common symptoms are constipation and incontinence. The... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Rectal prolapse is a benign condition that mainly affects females and the elderly. The most common symptoms are constipation and incontinence. The treatment of choice is surgical, but so far, there has been no gold standard method. The aim of this study is to compare the two most common intrabdominal procedures utilized for treating rectal prolapse: the resection rectopexy and the mesh rectopexy. (2) Methods: In this study, we conducted a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature and compared the two different approaches regarding their complication rate, recurrence rate, and improvement of symptoms rate. (3) Results: No statistically significant difference between the two methods was found regarding the operating time, the length of stay, the overall complication rate, the surgical site infection rate, the cardiopulmonary complication rate, the improvement in constipation and incontinence rates, and the recurrence rate. (4) Conclusions: Our study revealed that mesh rectopexy and resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse have similar short- and long-term outcomes. As a result, the decision for the procedure used should be individualized and based on the surgeon's preference and expertise.
PubMed: 38592257
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13051363 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2024We aimed to compare among patients with high-type anorectal malformations (ARM): (i) short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP)... (Review)
Review
Short and Long-Term Outcomes of PSARP versus LAARP and Single versus Staged Repair for Infants with High-Type Anorectal Malformations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
We aimed to compare among patients with high-type anorectal malformations (ARM): (i) short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) compared to classic posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) and (ii) the results of single-stage versus staged PSARP.
METHODS
Using a defined search strategy, two independent investigators systematically reviewed the English literature. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3.
RESULTS
Of 567 abstracts screened, 7 papers have been included (254 pts; 121 PSARP, 133 LAARP) in the first systematic review and meta-analysis. The length of hospitalization was shortened in LAARP versus PSARP (10.9 versus 14.4 days; < 0.0001). PSARP and LAARP were comparable in terms of early postoperative complications (28.9% versus 24.7%; = ns) and rectal prolapse (21.6% versus 17.5%; = ns). At long-term follow-up, the presence of voluntary bowel movements (74.0% versus 83.5%; = ns) and the incidence of soiling (45.5% versus 47.6%; = ns) were similar in both PSARP and LAARP. Six papers (297 pts) were included in the second systematic review, with three comparative studies included in the meta-analysis (247 pts; 117 one-stage, 130 staged procedures). No significant difference in terms of presence of voluntary bowel movements after single-stage versus staged procedures (72.6% versus 67.3%; = ns) has been detected.
CONCLUSIONS
LAARP seems to be a safe and effective procedure, showing short- and long-term outcomes similar to PSARP. One-stage PSARP could be a safe alternative to the classic three-stage procedure, even for those infants with high-type ARM. Further and larger comparative studies would be needed to corroborate these partial existing data.
PubMed: 38539411
DOI: 10.3390/children11030376 -
Journal of Indian Association of... 2023Anorectal malformations (ARMs) are managed classically in three stages - colostomy at birth, anorectal pull-through after 2-3 months, and stoma closure. Single-stage... (Review)
Review
Anorectal malformations (ARMs) are managed classically in three stages - colostomy at birth, anorectal pull-through after 2-3 months, and stoma closure. Single-stage pull-through has been contemplated in neonatal age aimed to reduce the number of procedures, better long-term continence, the better psycho-social status of the child, and reduced cost of treatment, especially in resource-strained countries. We conducted a systematic review comparing neonatal single-stage pull-through with stage pull-through and did a meta-analysis for the outcome and complications. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched and RevMan 5.4.1 was used for the meta-analysis. Fourteen comparative studies including one randomized controlled trial were included in the systematic review for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis included 1845 patients including 866 neonates undergoing single-stage pull-through. There was no statistically significant difference for the occurrence of surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-2.83), urinary tract injury (OR 1.82, 95% CI: 0.85-3.89), rectal prolapse (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.21-5.04), anal stenosis/stricture, voluntary bowel movements (OR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.25-3.73), constipation (OR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.61-1.67), soiling (OR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.52-1.51), mortality (OR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.04-39.74), or other complications. However, continence was seen to be better among patients undergoing neonatal pull-through (OR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.12-2.38). Thus, we can recommend single-stage pull-through for managing patients with ARMs in the neonatal age.
PubMed: 37842219
DOI: 10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_28_23 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023There is controversy about the outcomes of prophylactic ileostomy the specimen extraction site (SES) after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS). We, therefore,...
Which site is better for prophylactic ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery? By the specimen extraction site or new site: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
There is controversy about the outcomes of prophylactic ileostomy the specimen extraction site (SES) after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS). We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of stoma through the SES versus new site (NS).
METHODS
All relevant studies from 1997 to 2022 were searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP databases. This meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software 5.3 for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
7 studies with 1736 patients were included. The present meta-analysis noted that prophylactic ileostomy SES was associated with a higher risk of overall stoma-related complications, especially parastomal hernia (OR, 2.39, 95% CI 1.43-4.00; p=0.0008). No statistical difference was found in terms of wound infection, ileus, stoma edema, stoma prolapse, stoma necrosis, stoma infection, stoma bleeding, stoma stenosis, skin inflammation around the stoma, stoma retraction and postoperative pain score on postoperative day 1 and 3 between SES group and NS group. However, prophylactic ileostomy SES was associated with lesser blood loss (MD = -0.38, 95% CI: -0.62 - -0.13; p=0.003), shorter operation time(MD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.54 - -0.32 min; p<0.00001), shorter post-operative hospital stay (MD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.43 - -0.08; p=0.004), shorter time to first flatus(MD = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.39 - -0.08; p=0.003) and lower postoperative pain score on postoperative day 2.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic ileostomy SES after LRCS reduces new incision, decreases operative time, promotes postoperative recovery, and improves cosmetic outcomes, but may increase the incidence of parastomal hernias. The vast majority of parastomal hernias can be repaired by closing the ileostomy, therefore SES remain an option for temporary ileostomy after LRCS.
PubMed: 36874091
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1116502 -
BJUI Compass Nov 2022Pessaries are desirable for its overall safety profiles. Serious complications have been reported; however, there is little summative evidence. This systematic review... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pessaries are desirable for its overall safety profiles. Serious complications have been reported; however, there is little summative evidence. This systematic review aimed to consolidate all reported serious outcomes from pessaries usage to better identify and counsel patients who might be at higher risk of developing these adverse events.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review using search terms such as 'prolapse', 'stress urinary incontinence' and 'pessary or pessaries or pessarium' on PubMed, Embase and CINAHL. A total of 36 articles were identified. Patient-level data were extracted from case reports to further describe complications on an individual level.
RESULTS
Overall median age of the patients was 82 years (range 62-98). The most frequent complications were vesicovaginal fistula (25%, = 9/36), rectovaginal fistula (19%, = 7/36), vaginal impaction (11%, = 4/36) and vaginal evisceration of small bowel through vaginal vault (8%, = 3/36). In the vesicovaginal fistula cohort, none of the patients had a history of radiation, and two had histories of total abdominal hysterectomy (22%). In the rectovaginal fistula cohort, one patient had a history of pelvic radiation for rectal squamous cell carcinoma, and another had a history of chronic steroid use for rheumatoid arthritis. No other risk factors were reported in the other groups. Ring and Gellhorn were the most represented pessary types among the studies, 16 (44%) and 12 (33%), respectively. No complications were reported with surgical and non-surgical treatment of the complications.
CONCLUSION
Pessaries are a reasonable and durable treatment for POP with exceedingly rare reports of severe adverse complications. The ideal candidate for pessary should have a good self-care index. Studies to determine causative factors of the more serious adverse events are needed; however, this may be difficult given the long follow-up that is required.
PubMed: 36267197
DOI: 10.1002/bco2.174 -
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 -
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 -
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