Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse
Do you wish to request the book?
Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse
2021
Overview
Objectives
To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy (LMR) and laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) in patients with rectal prolapse.
Methods
We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits. Recurrence, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), surgical site infections, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome measures.
Results
We identified 5 comparative studies reporting a total of 307 patients evaluating outcomes of LMR (
n
=160) or LPSR (
n
=147) in patients with rectal prolapse. LMR was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.28,
P
=0.009) but longer procedure time (MD: 23.93,
P
<0.0001) compared to LPSR. However, there was no significant difference in CCIS (MD: −1.02,
P
=0.50), CCCS (MD: −1.54,
P
=0.47), surgical site infection (OR: 1.48,
P
=0.71), and length of hospital stay (MD: −1.54,
P
=0.47) between two groups. No mesh erosion was reported in any of the included studies at maximum follow-up point. Sub-group analyses with respect to ventral mesh rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy, randomised studies, and adult patients were consistent with the main analysis.
Conclusions
LMR seems to be associated with lower recurrence but longer procedure time compared to LPSR. Although no mesh-related complications have been reported by the included studies, no definitive conclusions can be made considering that the included studies were inadequately powered for such outcome. Future high-quality randomised studies with adequate sample size are required.
