Premium
Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations
Author(s) -
Pilkington S. A.,
Emmett C.,
Knowles C. H.,
Mason J.,
Yiannakou Y.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
colorectal disease
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.029
H-Index - 89
eISSN - 1463-1318
pISSN - 1462-8910
DOI - 10.1111/codi.13780
Subject(s) - medicine , sacral nerve stimulation , constipation , medline , quality of evidence , summative assessment , data extraction , evidence based medicine , randomized controlled trial , alternative medicine , intensive care medicine , surgery , pathology , formative assessment , statistics , mathematics , political science , law
Aim To assess the outcomes of sacral nerve stimulation in adults with chronic constipation. Method Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCi TY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine (2009) level. Results Seven articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 375 patients. Length of procedures and length of stay was not reported. Data on harms were inconsistently reported and heterogeneous, making estimates of harm tentative and imprecise. Morbidity rates ranged between 13 and 34%, with overall device removal rate between 8 and 23%. Although inconsistently reported, pooled treatment success was typically 57–87% for patients receiving permanent implants, although there was significant variation between studies. Patient selection was inconsistently documented. No conclusions could be drawn regarding particular phenotypes that responded favourably or unfavourably to sacral nerve stimulation. Conclusion Evidence supporting sacral nerve stimulation is derived from poor quality studies. Three methodologically robust trials are have reported since this review and all have all urged greater caution.