Premium
Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations
Author(s) -
Grossi U.,
Horrocks E. J.,
Mason J.,
Knowles C. H.,
Williams A. B.
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.13781
Subject(s) - medicine , constipation , observational study , randomized controlled trial , evidence based medicine , quality of evidence , summative assessment , harm , intensive care medicine , surgery , alternative medicine , statistics , mathematics , pathology , formative assessment , political science , law
Aim To assess the outcomes of recto‐vaginal reinforcement procedures 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 Forty‐three articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 3346 patients. Average length of procedures ranged between 20 and 169 min, and length of stay between 1 and 15 days. Complications typically occurred after 7–17% of procedures (range 0–61%). Post‐operative bleeding was uncommon (0–4%) as well as haematoma or sepsis (0–2%). Fistulation did not occur in most studies. Two procedure‐related deaths were observed for 3209 patients. Although inconsistent, 78% of patients reported a satisfactory or good outcome, with 30–50% experiencing reduced symptoms of straining, incomplete emptying or reduced vaginal digitation. About 17% of patients developed anatomical recurrence. Considering measures of harm and global satisfaction rating scales, there was insufficient evidence to prefer one type of procedure over another. There was no evidence to support better outcomes based on selection of patients with a particular size or grade of rectocoele. Conclusion Evidence supporting recto‐vaginal reinforcement procedures is currently derived from observational studies and comparisons, with only one high quality study. Large trials are needed to inform future clinical decision making.