ANZ journal of surgery · 2017
Transperineal rectocele repair: a systematic review.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяСистематический 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.
Zimmermann Eleanor F, Hayes Richard S, Daniels Ian R, Smart Neil J, Warwick Andrea M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transperineal rectocele repairs, either as isolated fascial repair or in combination with mesh augmentation, are hypothesized to reduce the risk of complications compared with alternative techniques.
AIM: The aim of this study was to ascertain long-term success and complication rates following transperineal rectocele repairs.
METHOD: A literature search of PubMed and Embase was performed using the terms 'transperineal rectocele', 'rectocele', 'transperineal' and 'repair'. Prospective studies, case series and retrospective case note analyses from 1 January 1994 to 1 December 2016 were included. Those that detailed outcomes of the transperineal approach or compared it to transanal/transvaginal approaches were included. The main outcome measures were reported complications and functional outcome scores.
RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were included. Of 566 patients, 333 (58.8%) underwent a transperineal rectocele repair and 220 (41.2%) a transanal repair. Complications were identified in 27 (12.3%) of the 220 transanal repairs and in 41 (12.3%) of the 333 transperineal repairs. A significant complication following transperineal repair was noted in eight studies. There are not enough data to make a reliable comparison between mesh and non-mesh transperineal repairs or to compare biological and synthetic mesh use.
LIMITATIONS: Outcome reporting differed between studies, precluding a full meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION: Transperineal rectocele repair offers an effective method of symptom improvement and appears to have a similar complication rate as transanal rectocele repair. Concomitant use of synthetic and biological mesh augmentation is becoming more common; however, high-quality comparative data are lacking, so a direct comparison between surgical approaches is not yet possible.
AIM: The aim of this study was to ascertain long-term success and complication rates following transperineal rectocele repairs.
METHOD: A literature search of PubMed and Embase was performed using the terms 'transperineal rectocele', 'rectocele', 'transperineal' and 'repair'. Prospective studies, case series and retrospective case note analyses from 1 January 1994 to 1 December 2016 were included. Those that detailed outcomes of the transperineal approach or compared it to transanal/transvaginal approaches were included. The main outcome measures were reported complications and functional outcome scores.
RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were included. Of 566 patients, 333 (58.8%) underwent a transperineal rectocele repair and 220 (41.2%) a transanal repair. Complications were identified in 27 (12.3%) of the 220 transanal repairs and in 41 (12.3%) of the 333 transperineal repairs. A significant complication following transperineal repair was noted in eight studies. There are not enough data to make a reliable comparison between mesh and non-mesh transperineal repairs or to compare biological and synthetic mesh use.
LIMITATIONS: Outcome reporting differed between studies, precluding a full meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION: Transperineal rectocele repair offers an effective method of symptom improvement and appears to have a similar complication rate as transanal rectocele repair. Concomitant use of synthetic and biological mesh augmentation is becoming more common; however, high-quality comparative data are lacking, so a direct comparison between surgical approaches is not yet possible.