Techniques in coloproctology · 2022
Surgical outcomes of Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through versus immediate coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
La Raja C, Foppa C, Maroli A, Kontovounisios C, Ben David N, Carvello M, Spinelli A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Theoretical advantages of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) are a reduced risk of anastomotic leak and therefore avoidance of stoma. Gradually abandoned in favor of immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with diverting stoma, DCAA has regained popularity in recent years in reconstructive surgery for low RC, especially when combined with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to perform the first meta-analysis, exploring the safety and outcomes of DCAA compared to ICAA with protective stoma.
METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases was performed for studies published from January 2000 until December 2020. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review on Interventions recommendations and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS: Out of 2626 studies screened, 9 were included in the systematic review and 4 studies in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included were postoperative complications, pelvic sepsis and risk of definitive stoma. Considering postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo III, no significant difference existed in the rate of postoperative morbidity between DCAA and ICAA (13% versus 21%; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.38-3.62; p = 0.78; I2 = 20%). Patients in the DCAA group experienced a lower rate of postoperative pelvic sepsis compared with patients undergoing ICAA with diverting stoma (7% versus 14%; OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.16-0.85; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%). The risk of definitive stoma was comparable between the two groups (2% versus 2% OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.15-3.85; p = 0.75; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: According to the limited current evidence, DCAA is associated with a significant decrease in pelvic sepsis. Further prospective trials focusing on oncologic and functional outcomes are needed.
METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases was performed for studies published from January 2000 until December 2020. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review on Interventions recommendations and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS: Out of 2626 studies screened, 9 were included in the systematic review and 4 studies in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included were postoperative complications, pelvic sepsis and risk of definitive stoma. Considering postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo III, no significant difference existed in the rate of postoperative morbidity between DCAA and ICAA (13% versus 21%; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.38-3.62; p = 0.78; I2 = 20%). Patients in the DCAA group experienced a lower rate of postoperative pelvic sepsis compared with patients undergoing ICAA with diverting stoma (7% versus 14%; OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.16-0.85; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%). The risk of definitive stoma was comparable between the two groups (2% versus 2% OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.15-3.85; p = 0.75; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: According to the limited current evidence, DCAA is associated with a significant decrease in pelvic sepsis. Further prospective trials focusing on oncologic and functional outcomes are needed.