Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2017
Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations: Results IV: Recto-vaginal reinforcement procedures.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Grossi U, Horrocks E J, Mason J, Knowles C H, Williams A B, NIHR CapaCiTY working group, Pelvic floor Society
Аннотация
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 CapaCiTY 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.
METHOD: Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCiTY 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.