| Literature DB >> 32164539 |
Ying Dai1, Yongfang Deng2, Yan Lin3, Runxian Ouyang1, Le Li4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in surgical techniques and perioperative care have improved the short- and mid-term postoperative outcomes of patients with Hirschsprung disease (HD). However, the long-term outcomes of these patients (older than 10 years) have not been fully investigated. The aim of this systematic review is to clarify the prevalence of long-term outcomes and the quality of life of these patients.Entities:
Keywords: Children; Constipation; Fecal incontinence; Follow-up; Hirschsprung disease; Long-term outcome; Prevalence; Quality of life
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32164539 PMCID: PMC7066788 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01208-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 3.067
Fig. 1PRISMA flowchart of the screening process
Characteristics and quality appraisal of included studies
| Author | Year | Country | Study design | Age range of patients (years) | Number of patients older than 10 years | Rectosigmoid aganglionosis (n) | Long-segment (n) | Total colonic aganglionosis (n) | Surgery approach | Age at surgery (Mean, interquartile range), (year) | Associated congenital disease or syndrome (n) | Fecal incontinence (n) | Constipation (n) | Urinary system dysfunction (n) | Quality of appraisal (NOS/AHRQ checklist) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Granström et al. [ | 2015 | Sweden | Case-control | 20–43 | 39 | 37 | / | 2 | Soave, Duhamel, Sphincteromyectomy, Ileostomy, Sigmoid colostomy. | 1 (1, 17) | Down syndrome (n = 1), hypospadias ( | / | / | 3 | S: 3, C: 1, E: 3 Total: 7 |
| Jarvi et al. [ | 2010 | Finland | Case-control | 35–48 | 89 | 79 | 4 | 1 | Soave, Duhamel, State Rehbein, Swenson, Colonal pull-through. | 2.2 (0.8, 2.0) | Down syndrome (n = 1), cartilage hair hypoplasia (n = 1), and multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (n = 1). | 12 | 27 | / | S: 3, C: 1, E: 2 Total: 6 |
| Neuvonen et al. [ | 2017 | Finland | Case-control | 18–32 | 33 | 66 | 7 | 3 | Transanal endorectal pull-through (TEPT), TEPT with laparotomy/laparoscopy, Ileoanal pull-through; Definitive endostomy. | 0.35 (0, 9.8) | Down syndrome (n = 11), Mowat-Wilson syndrome ( | 1 | 2 | / | S: 4, C: 1, E: 2 Total: 7 |
| Diseth et al. [ | 1997 | Norway | Case-control | 10–20 | 19 | 12 | / | 3 | Duhamel | 0.7 (0.1, 5) | Unclear | 6 | 3 | / | S: 3, C: 1, E: 3 Total: 7 |
| Conway et al. [ | 2007 | UK | Cohort study | 16–23 | 78 | 63 | 15 | 0 | Duhamel | 0.75 | Unclear | / | / | / | S: 2, C: 0, O: 2 Total: 4 |
| Athanasakos et al. [ | 2006 | Australia | Cross-sectional | 13–24 | 23 | 50 | 8 | 14 | Soave, Duhamel. | Unclear | Down syndrome (n = 2) | 11 | 5 | / | Yes: 6, No: 0, Unclear: 5 |
| Heikkinen et al. 1995 & Heikkinen et al. 1997 [ | 1995 | Finland & UK | Cohort study | 24–38 | 100 | 95 | 4 | 1 | Duhamel, Swenson, State-Rehbein, Soave. | < 1 year old: 38, 1–3 years old: 37, older than 3 years old: 25 | Down syndrome (n = 1), Chondroectodermal hypoplasia (n = 1), Marfan’s syndrome (n = 1). | 14 | 1 | / | S: 3, C: 1, O: 2 Total: 6 |
| Mills et al. [ | 2008 | Canada | Cross-sectional | 13–18 | 16 | 34 | 10 | 3 | Duhamel, Soave, Swenson, Transnal. | Unclear | Down syndrome ( | 1 | 1 | 0 | Yes: 8, No: 1, Unclear: 2 |
| Catto-Smith et al. [ | 2007 | Australia | Cross-sectional | 12–27 | 32 | / | / | / | Soave, Duhamel, Swenson, Unknown. | Unclear | Down syndrome ( | 7 | 18 | 4 | Yes: 8, No: 1, Unclear: 2 |
| Ieiri et al. [ | 2010 | Japan | Cross-sectional | 19–55 | 43 | 34 | 4 | 3 | Z-shaped anastomosis (modified Duhamel procedure), Swenson, Martin. | Unclear | Unclear | 15 | 2 | 5 | Yes: 7, No: 1, Unclear: 3 |
| Gunnarsdo’ttir et al. [ | 2010 | Sweden | Cross-sectional | 18–45 | 42 | 29 | 8 | 3 | Duhamel, Duhamel-Martin modification, Ileorectal anastomosis. | 0.58 (0,11.6) | Down syndrome ( | 13 | 5 | 2 | Yes: 9, No: 0, Unclear: 2 |
| Niramis et al. [ | 2008 | Thailand | Cross-sectional | 10–19 | 111 | 95 | 16 | 0 | Duhamel, Soave, Swenson. | 10–15 years old: 1 (0.5,13); older than 15 years old: 1.3 (0.6, 11) | Down syndrome ( | 17 | 11 | / | Yes: 6, No: 2, Unclear: 3 |
aThe NOS checklist was used to evaluate cohort studies and case-control studies, while the AHRQ checklist was used for cross-sectional studies. For cohort and case-control study, the total score of the NOS is 9, with higher score indicating higher-quality. S: Selection, C: Comparability, E: Exposure, O: Outcome. Score lower than 5 was considered low, 5–6 medium, and 7–9 high quality. For cross-sectional study, the overall quality of reports of the included studies was marginal to fair (Additional file 3). For example, most of the studies failed to report whether the patients were consecutively enrolled, which could be subjective to selection bias
bIn this study, patients with associated malformations were excluded for statistical analysis
Fig. 2a. Pooled prevalence of fecal incontinence. b. Pooled prevalence of constipation. c. Pooled mean score of Bowel Function Score (BFS score). d. Pooled prevalence of patients with excellent to good Holschneider Score. e. Pooled prevalence of patients with bladder dysfunction symptom. f. Pooled mean score of gastrointestinal quality of life index score (GIQLI score)
Bowel Function Score
| Factor | Score Given |
|---|---|
| Ability to hold back defecation | |
| Always | 3 |
| Problems < 1/week | 2 |
| Weekly problems | 1 |
| No voluntary control | 0 |
| Feels the urge to defecate | |
| Always | 3 |
| Most of the time | 2 |
| Uncertain | 1 |
| Absent | 0 |
| Frequency of defecation | |
| Every other day to twice a day | 2 |
| More often | 1 |
| Less often | 1 |
| Soiling | |
| Never | 3 |
| Staining < 1/week, no change of underwear required | 2 |
| Frequently staining/soiling, change of underwear required | 1 |
| Daily soiling, requires protective aids | 0 |
| Accidents | |
| Never | 3 |
| Less than 1/week | 2 |
| Weekly accidents, often requires protective aids | 1 |
| Daily, protective aids required day and night | 0 |
| Constipation | |
| No constipation | 3 |
| Manageable with diet | 2 |
| Manageable with laxatives | 1 |
| Manageable with enemas | 0 |
| Social problems | |
| No social problems | 3 |
| Sometimes (foul odors) | 2 |
| Problems causing restrictions of social life | 1 |
| Major social/psychological problems | 0 |
Fecal incontinence subgroup analysis for year of publication, geographic region, study design and age range
| Long-term outcome | Subgroup characteristics | Subgroup categories | Number of studies | Pooled prevalence / mean (95% CI) | Heterogeneity (I |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fecal incontinence | Year of publication | < 2008 | 6 | 0.19 (0.07, 0.30) | 0, 0.71 |
| > 2008 | 4 | 0.20 (0.06, 0.33) | 0, 0.42 | ||
| Geographic region | Europe | 5 | 0.16 (0.05, 0.28) | 0, 0.72 | |
| Oceania | 2 | 0.33 (0.07, 0.59) | 0, 0.34 | ||
| Asia | 2 | 0.21 (0.04, 0.40) | 16.5%, 0.27 | ||
| North America | 1 | 0.06 (−0.42, 0.55) | N/A | ||
| Study design | Case-control | 3 | 0.14 (−0.03, 0.30) | 0, 0.61 | |
| Cohort study | 1 | 0.14 (− 0.06, 0.34) | N/A | ||
| Cross-sectional | 6 | 0.24 (0.12, 0.36) | 0, 0.63 | ||
| Age at follow-up (years) a | ≤ 19 | 2 | 0.14 (−0.03, 0.32) | 0, 0.73 | |
| > 20 | 4 | 0.20 (0.08, 0.32) | 0, 0.53 | ||
| Age at surgery (years) b | < 0.5 | 1 | 0.03 (−0.31, 0.37) | N/A | |
| ≥ 0.5 | 5 | 0.17 (0.07, 0.28) | 0, 0.83 | ||
| Constipation | Year of publication | < 2008 | 6 | 0.16 (0.02, 0.31) | 36.7%, 0.162 |
| > 2008 | 4 | 0.17 (0.04, 0.31) | 0, 0.43 | ||
| Geographic region | Europe | 5 | 0.13 (0.02, 0.25) | 7.3%, 0.37 | |
| Oceania | 2 | 0.42 (0.16, 0.68) | 38.4%, 0.20 | ||
| Asia | 2 | 0.08 (−0.07, 0.24) | 0, 0.77 | ||
| North America | 1 | 0.06 (− 0.42, 0.55) | N/A | ||
| Study design | Case-control | 3 | 0.23 (0.06, 0.39) | 0, 0.46 | |
| Cohort study | 1 | 0.01 (−0.19, 0.21) | N/A | ||
| Cross-sectional | 6 | 0.17 (0.02, 0.31) | 23.6%, 0.257 | ||
| Age at follow-up (years) a | ≤ 19 | 2 | 0.09 (−0.08, 0.27) | 0, 0.89 | |
| > 20 | 4 | 0.13 (0.01, 0.25) | 32.5%, 0.22 | ||
| Age at surgery (years) b | < 0.5 | 1 | 0.06 (−0.28, 0.40) | N/A | |
| ≥ 0.5 | 5 | 0.13 (0.03, 0.23) | 6.2%, 0.37 | ||
| Bladder dysfunction | Year of publication | < 2008 | 2 | 0.08 (−0.20, 0.36) | 0, 0.68 |
| > 2008 | 3 | 0.08 (−0.09, 0.26) | 0, 0.95 | ||
| Geographic region | Europe | 2 | 0.06 (−0.16, 0.28) | 0, 0.90 | |
| Oceania | 1 | 0.13 (−0.22, 0.47) | N/A | ||
| Asia | 1 | 0.12 (−0.18, 0.41) | N/A | ||
| North America | 1 | 0.00 (−0.48, 0.48) | N/A | ||
| Study design | Case-control | 1 | 0.08 (−0.24, 0.39) | N/A | |
| Cohort study | 0 | N/A | N/A | ||
| Cross-sectional | 4 | 0.08 (−0.09, 0.25) | 23.6%, 0.257 | ||
| Age at follow-up (years) a | ≤ 19 | 1 | 0.00 (−0.48, 0.48) | N/A | |
| > 20 | 3 | 0.08 (−0.09, 0.26) | 0, 0.95 | ||
| Age at surgery (years) b | < 0.5 | 2 | 0.06 (−0.16, 0.28) | 0, 0.90 | |
| Unclear | 3 | 0.10 (−0.11, 0.30) | 0, 0.91 |
aOnly studies with all participants older than 20 years or younger than 19 years were included
bOnly studies reporting the patients’ age when they received surgery were included
Fig. 3a. Sensitivity analysis of combined relative frequency of patients with fecal incontinence. b. Sensitivity analysis of combined relative frequency of patients with constipation. c. Sensitivity analysis of combined relative frequency of patients with bladder dysfunction symptom