Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients
Background Rectal prolapse often affects women but may also affect men. This systematic review aimed to provide outcomes of surgery for complete rectal prolapse reported in studies with a predominantly male population. Methods This PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review searched PubMed and Sc...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Techniques in coloproctology 2024-12, Vol.28 (1), p.158, Article 158 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 158 |
| container_title | Techniques in coloproctology |
| container_volume | 28 |
| creator | Emile, S. H. Wignakumar, A. Horesh, N. Garoufalia, Z. Strassmann, V. Boutros, M. Wexner, S. D. |
| description | Background
Rectal prolapse often affects women but may also affect men. This systematic review aimed to provide outcomes of surgery for complete rectal prolapse reported in studies with a predominantly male population.
Methods
This PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review searched PubMed and Scopus between January 2000 and February 2024; Google Scholar was queried for studies reporting outcomes of complete rectal prolapse surgery in predominately (> 90%) male populations. Main outcome measures were recurrence, complications, operative time, and bowel function.
Results
Eight studies (452 patients; median age 45.6 years) were included; 80.5% of patients underwent abdominal procedures whereas 19.5% underwent perineal procedures. The prevalence of recurrence was 11.2% after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR), 0.8% after posterior mesh rectopexy (PMR), 0 after resection rectopexy, and 19.3% after perineal procedures. The prevalence of complications was 13.9% after VMR, 13.1% after PMR, 43.3% after resection rectopexy, and 17.4% after perineal procedures. The most improvement in constipation was noted after resection rectopexy (83.3–100%) and in fecal incontinence (FI) was noted after posterior mesh rectopexy (86.4–90%). Abdominal procedures had lower rates of recurrence (6% vs. 19.3%, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21–1.18,
p
= 0.113), similar complication rates (14.3% vs. 13.6%, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.06–2.9,
p
= 0.374), and longer operative times (116 ± 47.2 vs. 74.2 ± 23.6 min,
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10151-024-03039-6 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3128819003</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3128282988</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c256t-d1698928033493828dcbfca403f1d98c2ed5f0a82839c6c8f8750c90468ad2353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctKXTEUhoO0qD36Ah1IoBMn0ZVkX5JhES8FwYEtdBZystc-bMm-mGS3nLfxWXwy49m2hQ4kg4S1vv9fSX5CPnM44wD1eeTAS85AFAwkSM2qPXLIuVAMivLnh91ZskrK-oB8ivEBgNd1yffJgdSlVCDUIQn325iwt6lz1HcJg01zQBrwV4e_qR0a2mOyzA7Wb2MXn5_GlsY5bDpnPU0BbepxSDRX3dhPHtOr1qXcnMLo7RSRdgPtrUc65SGZjUfkY2t9xOO3fUV-XF1-v7hht3fX3y6-3jInyiqxhldaaaFAykJLJVTj1q2zBciWN1o5gU3Zgs0NqV3lVKvqEpyGolK2EbKUK3K6-OabPM4Yk-m76NB7O-A4RyPzTymuIQ9YkS__oQ_jHPKbFyovrVSmxEK5MMYYsDVT6HobtoaDeU3ELImYnIjZJWKqLDp5s57XPTZ_JX8iyIBcgJhbwwbDv9nv2L4AGBWYCQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3128282988</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Emile, S. H. ; Wignakumar, A. ; Horesh, N. ; Garoufalia, Z. ; Strassmann, V. ; Boutros, M. ; Wexner, S. D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Emile, S. H. ; Wignakumar, A. ; Horesh, N. ; Garoufalia, Z. ; Strassmann, V. ; Boutros, M. ; Wexner, S. D.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Rectal prolapse often affects women but may also affect men. This systematic review aimed to provide outcomes of surgery for complete rectal prolapse reported in studies with a predominantly male population.
Methods
This PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review searched PubMed and Scopus between January 2000 and February 2024; Google Scholar was queried for studies reporting outcomes of complete rectal prolapse surgery in predominately (> 90%) male populations. Main outcome measures were recurrence, complications, operative time, and bowel function.
Results
Eight studies (452 patients; median age 45.6 years) were included; 80.5% of patients underwent abdominal procedures whereas 19.5% underwent perineal procedures. The prevalence of recurrence was 11.2% after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR), 0.8% after posterior mesh rectopexy (PMR), 0 after resection rectopexy, and 19.3% after perineal procedures. The prevalence of complications was 13.9% after VMR, 13.1% after PMR, 43.3% after resection rectopexy, and 17.4% after perineal procedures. The most improvement in constipation was noted after resection rectopexy (83.3–100%) and in fecal incontinence (FI) was noted after posterior mesh rectopexy (86.4–90%). Abdominal procedures had lower rates of recurrence (6% vs. 19.3%, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21–1.18,
p
= 0.113), similar complication rates (14.3% vs. 13.6%, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.06–2.9,
p
= 0.374), and longer operative times (116 ± 47.2 vs. 74.2 ± 23.6 min,
p
< 0.001).
Conclusions
Treatment of rectal prolapse in male patients undergoing abdominal procedures was associated with longer operative times, lower recurrence rates, and similar complications to perineal procedures. PMR and resection rectopexy had the lowest recurrence. The most improvement in FI and constipation was noted after PMR and resection rectopexy, respectively.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1123-6337</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1128-045X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1128-045X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10151-024-03039-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39538028</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Adult ; Colorectal Surgery ; Constipation ; Constipation - epidemiology ; Constipation - etiology ; Constipation - surgery ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures - adverse effects ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures - methods ; Fecal incontinence ; Fecal Incontinence - epidemiology ; Fecal Incontinence - etiology ; Gastroenterology ; Humans ; Literature reviews ; Male ; Males ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Middle Aged ; Operative Time ; Perineum - surgery ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Proctology ; Rectal Prolapse - surgery ; Rectum - surgery ; Recurrence ; Review ; Surgery ; Surgical Mesh ; Surgical techniques ; Systematic review ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Techniques in coloproctology, 2024-12, Vol.28 (1), p.158, Article 158</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2024. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c256t-d1698928033493828dcbfca403f1d98c2ed5f0a82839c6c8f8750c90468ad2353</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10151-024-03039-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10151-024-03039-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39538028$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Emile, S. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wignakumar, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horesh, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garoufalia, Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strassmann, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boutros, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wexner, S. D.</creatorcontrib><title>Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients</title><title>Techniques in coloproctology</title><addtitle>Tech Coloproctol</addtitle><addtitle>Tech Coloproctol</addtitle><description>Background
Rectal prolapse often affects women but may also affect men. This systematic review aimed to provide outcomes of surgery for complete rectal prolapse reported in studies with a predominantly male population.
Methods
This PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review searched PubMed and Scopus between January 2000 and February 2024; Google Scholar was queried for studies reporting outcomes of complete rectal prolapse surgery in predominately (> 90%) male populations. Main outcome measures were recurrence, complications, operative time, and bowel function.
Results
Eight studies (452 patients; median age 45.6 years) were included; 80.5% of patients underwent abdominal procedures whereas 19.5% underwent perineal procedures. The prevalence of recurrence was 11.2% after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR), 0.8% after posterior mesh rectopexy (PMR), 0 after resection rectopexy, and 19.3% after perineal procedures. The prevalence of complications was 13.9% after VMR, 13.1% after PMR, 43.3% after resection rectopexy, and 17.4% after perineal procedures. The most improvement in constipation was noted after resection rectopexy (83.3–100%) and in fecal incontinence (FI) was noted after posterior mesh rectopexy (86.4–90%). Abdominal procedures had lower rates of recurrence (6% vs. 19.3%, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21–1.18,
p
= 0.113), similar complication rates (14.3% vs. 13.6%, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.06–2.9,
p
= 0.374), and longer operative times (116 ± 47.2 vs. 74.2 ± 23.6 min,
p
< 0.001).
Conclusions
Treatment of rectal prolapse in male patients undergoing abdominal procedures was associated with longer operative times, lower recurrence rates, and similar complications to perineal procedures. PMR and resection rectopexy had the lowest recurrence. The most improvement in FI and constipation was noted after PMR and resection rectopexy, respectively.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Colorectal Surgery</subject><subject>Constipation</subject><subject>Constipation - epidemiology</subject><subject>Constipation - etiology</subject><subject>Constipation - surgery</subject><subject>Digestive System Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Digestive System Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Fecal incontinence</subject><subject>Fecal Incontinence - epidemiology</subject><subject>Fecal Incontinence - etiology</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Males</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Operative Time</subject><subject>Perineum - surgery</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Rectal Prolapse - surgery</subject><subject>Rectum - surgery</subject><subject>Recurrence</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh</subject><subject>Surgical techniques</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1123-6337</issn><issn>1128-045X</issn><issn>1128-045X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctKXTEUhoO0qD36Ah1IoBMn0ZVkX5JhES8FwYEtdBZystc-bMm-mGS3nLfxWXwy49m2hQ4kg4S1vv9fSX5CPnM44wD1eeTAS85AFAwkSM2qPXLIuVAMivLnh91ZskrK-oB8ivEBgNd1yffJgdSlVCDUIQn325iwt6lz1HcJg01zQBrwV4e_qR0a2mOyzA7Wb2MXn5_GlsY5bDpnPU0BbepxSDRX3dhPHtOr1qXcnMLo7RSRdgPtrUc65SGZjUfkY2t9xOO3fUV-XF1-v7hht3fX3y6-3jInyiqxhldaaaFAykJLJVTj1q2zBciWN1o5gU3Zgs0NqV3lVKvqEpyGolK2EbKUK3K6-OabPM4Yk-m76NB7O-A4RyPzTymuIQ9YkS__oQ_jHPKbFyovrVSmxEK5MMYYsDVT6HobtoaDeU3ELImYnIjZJWKqLDp5s57XPTZ_JX8iyIBcgJhbwwbDv9nv2L4AGBWYCQ</recordid><startdate>20241201</startdate><enddate>20241201</enddate><creator>Emile, S. H.</creator><creator>Wignakumar, A.</creator><creator>Horesh, N.</creator><creator>Garoufalia, Z.</creator><creator>Strassmann, V.</creator><creator>Boutros, M.</creator><creator>Wexner, S. D.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20241201</creationdate><title>Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients</title><author>Emile, S. H. ; Wignakumar, A. ; Horesh, N. ; Garoufalia, Z. ; Strassmann, V. ; Boutros, M. ; Wexner, S. D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c256t-d1698928033493828dcbfca403f1d98c2ed5f0a82839c6c8f8750c90468ad2353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Colorectal Surgery</topic><topic>Constipation</topic><topic>Constipation - epidemiology</topic><topic>Constipation - etiology</topic><topic>Constipation - surgery</topic><topic>Digestive System Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Digestive System Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Fecal incontinence</topic><topic>Fecal Incontinence - epidemiology</topic><topic>Fecal Incontinence - etiology</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Males</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Operative Time</topic><topic>Perineum - surgery</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Rectal Prolapse - surgery</topic><topic>Rectum - surgery</topic><topic>Recurrence</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh</topic><topic>Surgical techniques</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Emile, S. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wignakumar, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horesh, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garoufalia, Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strassmann, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boutros, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wexner, S. D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Techniques in coloproctology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Emile, S. H.</au><au>Wignakumar, A.</au><au>Horesh, N.</au><au>Garoufalia, Z.</au><au>Strassmann, V.</au><au>Boutros, M.</au><au>Wexner, S. D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients</atitle><jtitle>Techniques in coloproctology</jtitle><stitle>Tech Coloproctol</stitle><addtitle>Tech Coloproctol</addtitle><date>2024-12-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>158</spage><pages>158-</pages><artnum>158</artnum><issn>1123-6337</issn><issn>1128-045X</issn><eissn>1128-045X</eissn><abstract>Background
Rectal prolapse often affects women but may also affect men. This systematic review aimed to provide outcomes of surgery for complete rectal prolapse reported in studies with a predominantly male population.
Methods
This PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review searched PubMed and Scopus between January 2000 and February 2024; Google Scholar was queried for studies reporting outcomes of complete rectal prolapse surgery in predominately (> 90%) male populations. Main outcome measures were recurrence, complications, operative time, and bowel function.
Results
Eight studies (452 patients; median age 45.6 years) were included; 80.5% of patients underwent abdominal procedures whereas 19.5% underwent perineal procedures. The prevalence of recurrence was 11.2% after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR), 0.8% after posterior mesh rectopexy (PMR), 0 after resection rectopexy, and 19.3% after perineal procedures. The prevalence of complications was 13.9% after VMR, 13.1% after PMR, 43.3% after resection rectopexy, and 17.4% after perineal procedures. The most improvement in constipation was noted after resection rectopexy (83.3–100%) and in fecal incontinence (FI) was noted after posterior mesh rectopexy (86.4–90%). Abdominal procedures had lower rates of recurrence (6% vs. 19.3%, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21–1.18,
p
= 0.113), similar complication rates (14.3% vs. 13.6%, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.06–2.9,
p
= 0.374), and longer operative times (116 ± 47.2 vs. 74.2 ± 23.6 min,
p
< 0.001).
Conclusions
Treatment of rectal prolapse in male patients undergoing abdominal procedures was associated with longer operative times, lower recurrence rates, and similar complications to perineal procedures. PMR and resection rectopexy had the lowest recurrence. The most improvement in FI and constipation was noted after PMR and resection rectopexy, respectively.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>39538028</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10151-024-03039-6</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1123-6337 |
| ispartof | Techniques in coloproctology, 2024-12, Vol.28 (1), p.158, Article 158 |
| issn | 1123-6337 1128-045X 1128-045X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3128819003 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Abdominal Surgery Adult Colorectal Surgery Constipation Constipation - epidemiology Constipation - etiology Constipation - surgery Digestive System Surgical Procedures - adverse effects Digestive System Surgical Procedures - methods Fecal incontinence Fecal Incontinence - epidemiology Fecal Incontinence - etiology Gastroenterology Humans Literature reviews Male Males Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Middle Aged Operative Time Perineum - surgery Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Postoperative Complications - etiology Proctology Rectal Prolapse - surgery Rectum - surgery Recurrence Review Surgery Surgical Mesh Surgical techniques Systematic review Treatment Outcome |
| title | Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T00%3A09%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Systematic%20literature%20review%20and%20meta-analysis%C2%A0of%20surgical%20treatment%20of%20complete%20rectal%20prolapse%20in%20male%20patients&rft.jtitle=Techniques%20in%20coloproctology&rft.au=Emile,%20S.%20H.&rft.date=2024-12-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=158&rft.pages=158-&rft.artnum=158&rft.issn=1123-6337&rft.eissn=1128-045X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10151-024-03039-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3128282988%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3128282988&rft_id=info:pmid/39538028&rfr_iscdi=true |