Search

Abstract Objective Discussion remains on how to advise women with a past medical history of surgically corrected anorectal malformations (ARMs) regarding vaginal delivery. The aim of this review is to evaluate and review the reported obstetrical complications and outcomes after vaginal delivery for these women. Data sources A systematic search was performed from inception up to 25 July 2022 in PubMed, Embase.com and Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection, with backward citation tracking. Study eligibility criteria/appraisal All articles reported on the outcomes of interest in women with a past medical history of surgically corrected anorectal malformation and had a vaginal delivery were included with the exception of editorial comments or invitational commentaries. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was done by two authors independently with a third and fourth reviewer in case of disagreement. Tool for Quality assessment depended on the type of article. As low quality evidence was expected no meta-analysis was performed. Results Only five of the 2377 articles screened were eligible for inclusion with a total of 13 attempted vaginal deliveries in eight women. In three patients complications were reported: failed vaginal delivery requiring urgent cesarean section in two patients, and vaginal tearing in one patient. Conclusion High quality evidence regarding outcomes and complications after vaginal delivery in women with a history of surgically corrected anorectal malformation is lacking. Therefore, based upon this systematic review no formal recommendation can be formulated regarding its safety. Future studies are essential to address this problem. Trial registration CRD42020201390. Date: 28–07-2020s.

Background: Continence problems occur often in children with anorectal malformations (ARM). The aim of this study was to evaluate parental experiences with toilet facilities at Dutch primary schools and their experience with how schools deal with ARM children. Methods: This survey was developed in collaboration with the national patient advocacy group (PAG). Recruitment for participation was conducted by the PAG (email listing and social media) and one expertise center for ARM. Participants were parents of school-attending ARM children aged 3 to 12 years. Results: Sixty-one participants (31.9%) responded to the survey. The median age of the children was 7.0 years (IQR 5.0–9.0). Schools were often located in a village (63.9%) and encompassed 100–500 children (77.0%). In total, 14 parents (23.0%) experienced difficulties in finding a primary school. Experiences with the school were described as solely positive (37.7%), solely negative (9.8%), positive and negative (34.4%), and neither positive nor negative (16.4%). Regarding school toilet facilities, 65.6% of the toilets were reported clean and 78.7% were easily accessible. Conclusions: About 25% of parents reported difficulties in enrolling their children into primary school, and 45% reported negative experiences. This highlights the need for improved guidance and the optimization of education in schools when dealing with ARM children.