H S Lobb1, C C Kearsey2, S Ahmed3, R Rajaganeshan2. 1. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 2. St Helen's and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. 3. Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on the recurrence rates of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) or intussusception (IS) after SR and VMR. Results were pooled and procedures compared; a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients with CRP and IS who underwent VMR using biological versus synthetic meshes. A meta-analysis of studies comparing SR and VMR was undertaken. The Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies score, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to assess the quality of studies. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with 976 patients were included in the SR group and 31 studies with 1605 patients in the VMR group; among these studies, five were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall, in patients with CRP, the recurrence rate was 8.6 per cent after SR and 3.7 per cent after VMR (P < 0.001). However, in patients with IS treated using VMR, the recurrence rate was 9.7 per cent. Recurrence rates after VMR did not differ with use of biological or synthetic mesh in patients treated for CRP (4.1 versus 3.6 per cent; P = 0.789) and or IS (11.4 versus 11.0 per cent; P = 0.902). Results from the meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, and the difference in recurrence rates between SR and VMR groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Although the systematic review showed a higher recurrence rate after SR than VMR for treatment of CRP, this result was not confirmed by meta-analysis. Therefore, robust RCTs comparing SR and biological VMR are required.
BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on the recurrence rates of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) or intussusception (IS) after SR and VMR. Results were pooled and procedures compared; a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients with CRP and IS who underwent VMR using biological versus synthetic meshes. A meta-analysis of studies comparing SR and VMR was undertaken. The Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies score, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to assess the quality of studies. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with 976 patients were included in the SR group and 31 studies with 1605 patients in the VMR group; among these studies, five were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall, in patients with CRP, the recurrence rate was 8.6 per cent after SR and 3.7 per cent after VMR (P < 0.001). However, in patients with IS treated using VMR, the recurrence rate was 9.7 per cent. Recurrence rates after VMR did not differ with use of biological or synthetic mesh in patients treated for CRP (4.1 versus 3.6 per cent; P = 0.789) and or IS (11.4 versus 11.0 per cent; P = 0.902). Results from the meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, and the difference in recurrence rates between SR and VMR groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Although the systematic review showed a higher recurrence rate after SR than VMR for treatment of CRP, this result was not confirmed by meta-analysis. Therefore, robust RCTs comparing SR and biological VMR are required.
Authors: Rao K Mehmood; Jody Parker; L Bhuvimanian; Eyas Qasem; Ahmed A Mohammed; Muhammad Zeeshan; Kirsten Grugel; Paul Carter; Shakil Ahmed Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: S H Emile; H Elbanna; M Youssef; W Thabet; W Omar; A Elshobaky; T M Abd El-Hamed; M Farid Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Esther C J Consten; Jan J van Iersel; Paul M Verheijen; Ivo A M J Broeders; Albert M Wolthuis; Andre D'Hoore Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18