Search

Aim This manuscript provides the introduction and detailed methodology used in subsequent reviews to assess the outcomes of surgical interventions with the primary intent of treating chronic constipation in adults and to develop recommendations for practice. Method PRISMA guidance was adhered to throughout. A literature search was performed in public databases between January 1960 and February 2016. Studies that fulfilled strictly-defined PICOS (patients, interventions, controls, outcome, and study design) criteria were included. The process involved two groups of participants: (i): 'a clinical guidance group' of 18 UK experts (including junior support) who performed the systematic reviews and produced summary evidence statements ( SES) based strictly on data synthesis in each review. The same group then produced prototype graded practice recommendations ( GPRs) based on coalescence of SES and expert opinion; (ii): a European Consensus group of 18 ESCP (European Society of Coloproctology) nominated experts from nine European countries evaluated the appropriateness of each prototype GPR based on published RAND/ UCLA methodology. Results An overview of the search results is provided in this manuscript. A total of 156 studies from 307 full text articles (from 2551 initially screened records) were included, providing data on procedures characterized by: (i) colonic resection ( n = 40); (ii) rectal suspension ( n = 18); (iii) rectal wall excision ( n = 44); (iv) rectovaginal septum reinforcement ( n = 47); (v) sacral nerve stimulation ( n = 7). The overall quality of evidence was poor with 113/156 (72.4%) studies providing only Oxford level IV evidence. The best evidence was extracted for rectal excisional procedures, where the majority of studies were Oxford level I or II. The five subsequent reviews provide a total of 99 SES (reflecting perioperative variables, efficacy, harms and prognostic variables) that contributed to 100 prototype GPRs covering patient selection, procedural considerations and patient counselling. The final manuscript details the 85/100 GPRs that were deemed appropriate by European Consensus (remaining 15 were all uncertain) and future research recommendations. Conclusion This manuscript and the following 6 papers suggest that the evidence base for surgical management of chronic constipation is currently poor although some expert consensus exists on best practice. Further studies are required to inform future commissioning of treatments and of research funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim This manuscript forms the final of seven that address the surgical management of chronic constipation ( CC) in adults. The content coalesces results from the five systematic reviews that precede it and of the European Consensus process to derive graded practice recommendations ( GPR). Methods Summary of review data, development of GPR and future research recommendations as outlined in detail in the 'introduction and methods' paper. Results The overall quality of data in the five reviews was poor with 113/156(72.4%) of included studies providing only level IV evidence and only four included level I RCTs. Coalescence of data from the five procedural classes revealed that few firm conclusions could be drawn regarding procedural choice or patient selection: no single procedure dominated in addressing dynamic structural abnormalities of the anorectum and pelvic floor with each having similar overall efficacy. Of one hundred 'prototype' GPRs developed by the clinical guideline group, 85/100 were deemed 'appropriate' based on the independent scoring of a panel of 18 European experts and use of RAND- UCLA consensus methodology. The remaining 15 were all deemed uncertain. Future research recommendations included some potential RCTs but also a strong emphasis on delivery of large multinational high-quality prospective cohort studies. Conclusion While the evidence base for surgery in CC is poor, the widespread European consensus for GPRs is encouraging. Professional bodies have the opportunity to build on this work by supporting the efforts of their membership to help convert the documented recommendations into clinical guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To assess the outcomes of rectal suspension procedures (forms of rectopexy) in adults with chronic constipation. Method Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCiTY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level. Results Eighteen articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 1238 patients. All studies reported only on laparoscopic approaches. Length of procedures ranged between 1.5 to 3.5 h, and length of stay between 4 to 5 days. Data on harms were inconsistently reported and heterogeneous, making estimates of harm tentative and imprecise. Morbidity rates ranged between 5-15%, with mesh complications accounting for 0.5% of patients overall. No mortality was reported after any procedures in a total of 1044 patients. Although inconsistently reported, good or satisfactory outcome occurred in 83% (74-91%) of patients; 86% (20-97%) of patients reported improvements in constipation after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). About 2-7% of patients developed anatomical recurrence. Patient selection was inconsistently documented. As most common indication, high grade rectal intussusception was corrected in 80-100% of cases after robotic or LVMR. Healing of prolapse-associated solitary rectal ulcer syndrome occurred in around 80% of patients after LVMR. Conclusion Evidence supporting rectal suspension procedures is currently derived from poor quality studies. Methodologically robust trials are needed to inform future clinical decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the function of Gemellus which notes that the need for surgery to correct an anastomotic leak was the determining factor in a poorer outcome from cancer. The Gemellus affirmed that by using staged operative procedures the deeper fistulae were all healed in the end with no patient at all being incontinent.

Aim To assess the outcomes of rectal excisional procedures in adults with chronic constipation. Method Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCi TY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level. Results Forty-seven studies were identified, providing data on outcomes in 8340 patients. Average length of procedures was 44 min and length of stay ( LOS) was 3 days. There was inadequate evidence to determine variations in procedural duration or LOS by type of procedure. Overall morbidity rate was 16.9% (0-61%), with lower rates observed after Contour Transtar procedure (8.9%). No mortality was reported after any procedures in a total of 5896 patients. Although inconsistently reported, good or satisfactory outcome occurred in 73-80% of patients; a reduction of 53-91% in Longo scoring system for obstructive defecation syndrome ( ODS) occurred in about 68-76% of patients. The most common long-term adverse outcome is faecal urgency, typically occurring in up to 10% of patients. Recurrent prolapse occurred in 4.3% of patients. Patients with at least 3 ODS symptoms together with a rectocoele with or without an intussusception, who have failed conservative management, may benefit from a rectal excisional procedure. Conclusion Rectal excisional procedures are safe with little major morbidity. It is not possible to advise which excisional technique is superior from the point of view of efficacy, peri-operative variables, or harms. Future study is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Rectal prolapse is a profoundly disabling condition, occurring mainly in elderly and parous women. There is no accepted standard surgical treatment, with previous studies limited in methodological quality and size. PROSPER aimed to address these deficiencies by comparing the relative merits of different procedures. Method In a pragmatic, factorial (2 × 2) design trial, patients could be randomised between abdominal and perineal surgery (i), and suture vs resection rectopexy for those receiving an abdominal procedure (ii) or Altemeier's vs Delorme's for those receiving a perineal procedure (iii). Primary outcome measures were recurrence of the prolapse, incontinence, bowel function and quality of life scores (Vaizey, bowel thermometer and EQ-5D) measured up to 3 years. Results Two hundred and ninety-three patients were recruited: 49 were randomised between surgical approaches (i); 78 between abdominal procedures (ii); and 213 between perineal procedures (iii). Recurrence rates were higher than anticipated, but not significantly different in any comparison: Altemeier's vs Delorme's 24/102 (24%) and 31/99 (31%) [hazard ratio ( HR) 0.81; 95% CI 0.47, 1.38; P = 0.4]; resection vs suture rectopexy 4/32 (13%) and 9/35 (26%) ( HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14, 1.46; P = 0.2); perineal vs abdominal 5/25 (20%) and 5/19 (26%) ( HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.24, 2.86; P = 0.8). Vaizey, bowel thermometer and EQ-5D scores were not significantly different in any of the comparisons. Conclusion No significant differences were seen in any of the randomised comparisons, although substantial improvements from baseline in quality of life were noted following all procedures . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Some conditions, previously managed by general surgeons, may be treated more successfully by colorectal specialists. This argument is well established for rectal cancer but does it also apply to benign conditions? This study compares the treatment strategies and outcomes for fistulae-in-ano by general and colorectal surgeons in a district general hospital. Method Patients who had surgery for fistula-in-ano from January 1992–October 2003 were identified from theatre records. Case notes were reviewed for data on type of fistula, aetiology, surgery performed and recurrence. All patients were sent a questionnaire requesting details of recurrence and incontinence. The severity of incontinence was assessed using the Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (FIQOLS) and the Faecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI). Results Eighty four patients (male = 53) were identified. Colorectal surgeons performed surgery in 34 and general surgeons in 50 patients. These groups were comparable with terms of age, gender, aetiology (colorectal: IBD = 5, cryptoglandular = 21: general IBD = 14, cryptoglandular = 24; P = 0.28; Chi-squared test), and type of fistulae (colorectal: inter-sphincteric = 20, trans-sphincteric = 13: general inter-sphincteric = 30, trans-sphincteric = 18: P = 1.0; Fisher's exact test). Colorectal surgeons carried out fewer fistulotomies (47.1% vs 84.0%; P < 0.001; Fisher's exact test), more staged fistulotomies with Setons (44.1% vs 10.0%: P < 0.001; Fisher's exact test), and had fewer recurrences (9.7% vs 30.0%: P < 0.05; Fisher's exact test) when compared with general surgeons. Five patients with recurrence from the general surgery group were subsequently referred to the colorectal surgeons; four patients had further surgery (fistulotomy = 2; staged fistulotomy = 2) with no recurrence to date; one patient required proctectomy. Forty seven (64.4%) patients answered the questionnaire. There was no difference between patients operated on by colorectal or general surgeons with regards the frequency (43.5% vs 62.5%: P = 0.25; Fisher's exact test) or severity [FISI 26 (21–38); median (inter-quartile range) vs 26 (17–38); median (inter-quartile range: P = 0.85; Mann–Whitney test) of faecal incontinence. There was no difference between the groups with regards any of the four scales that comprised the FIQOLS. Conclusions The number of included patients is far too low to draw any conclusions but there were some interesting trends. For similar patient samples, colorectal surgeons seem to adopt a more conservative approach and have fewer recurrences than general surgeons. These differences are not reflected in the frequency or severity of postoperative incontinence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]