COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Duhamel and Transanal Endorectal Pull-throughs for Hirschsprung' Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

AIM:  The Duhamel pull-through and transanal endorectal pull-through (TEPT) are commonly used for the treatment of Hirschsprung's disease (HD). To date, there has been no meta-analysis evaluating postoperative outcomes following Duhamel pull-through and TEPT. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare patient outcome after Duhamel pull-through and TEPT for HD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:  Original articles published between 1998 and 2016 were identified using the MEDLINE database. Studies comparing Duhamel pull-through and TEPT were included. Outcomes evaluated included incidence of postoperative constipation, incontinence/soiling, enterocolitis, anastomotic stricture, and leak. We analyzed dichotomous variables by estimating odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous variables using the weighted mean difference with 95% CI. The meta-analysis was done using RevMan 5.3.

RESULT:  There were no randomized controlled trials. Seven observational clinical studies were included, comprising 260 cases of Duhamel pull-through and 170 cases of TEPT. Anastomotic stricture (OR = 0.10; 95%CI 0.02-0.48; p  = 0.004) was lower following Duhamel pull-through than TEPT. There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative incontinence/soiling and anastomotic leak. After TEPT, postoperative constipation seems to be lower and enterocolitis higher compared with those after Duhamel pull-through; however, these differences are not significant when the follow-up period is equal between groups.

CONCLUSION:  The Duhamel pull-through seems to be associated with lower incidence of anastomotic stricture compared with TEPT. The effects of the two analyzed operative techniques on constipation and enterocolitis remain unclear. The quality of evidence supporting the above findings is suboptimal, indicating the need for prospective studies.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app