We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Conservative surgery versus colorectal resection for endometriosis with rectal involvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical and long-term outcomes.
International Journal of Colorectal Disease 2023 Februrary 28
PURPOSE: The optimal surgical approach for removal of colorectal endometrial deposits is unclear. Shaving and discoid excision of colorectal deposits allow organ preservation but risk recurrence with associated functional issues and re-operation. Formal resection risks potential higher complications but may be associated with lower recurrence rates. This meta-analysis compares peri-operative and long-term outcomes between conservative surgery (shaving and disc excision) versus formal colorectal resection.
METHODS: The study was registered with PROSPERO. A systematic search was performed on PubMed and EMBASE databases. All comparative studies examining surgical outcomes in patients that underwent conservative surgery versus colorectal resection for rectal endometrial deposits were included. The two main groups (conservative versus resection) were compared in three main blocks of variables including group comparability, operative outcomes and long-term outcomes.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 2861 patients were analysed with patients subdivided by procedure: colorectal resection (n = 1389), shaving (n = 703) and discoid excision (n = 742). When formal colorectal resection was compared to conservative surgery there was lower risk of recurrence (p = 0.002), comparable functional outcomes (minor LARS, p = 0.30, major LARS, p = 0.54), similar rates of postoperative leaks (p = 0.22), pelvic abscesses (p = 0.18) and rectovaginal fistula (p = 0.92). On subgroup analysis, shaving had the highest recurrence rate (p = 0.0007), however a lower rate of stoma formation (p < 0.00001) and rectal stenosis (p = 0.01). Discoid excision and formal resection were comparable.
CONCLUSION: Colorectal resection has a significantly lower recurrence rate compared to shaving. There is no difference in complications or functional outcomes between discoid excision and formal resection and both have similar recurrence rates.
METHODS: The study was registered with PROSPERO. A systematic search was performed on PubMed and EMBASE databases. All comparative studies examining surgical outcomes in patients that underwent conservative surgery versus colorectal resection for rectal endometrial deposits were included. The two main groups (conservative versus resection) were compared in three main blocks of variables including group comparability, operative outcomes and long-term outcomes.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 2861 patients were analysed with patients subdivided by procedure: colorectal resection (n = 1389), shaving (n = 703) and discoid excision (n = 742). When formal colorectal resection was compared to conservative surgery there was lower risk of recurrence (p = 0.002), comparable functional outcomes (minor LARS, p = 0.30, major LARS, p = 0.54), similar rates of postoperative leaks (p = 0.22), pelvic abscesses (p = 0.18) and rectovaginal fistula (p = 0.92). On subgroup analysis, shaving had the highest recurrence rate (p = 0.0007), however a lower rate of stoma formation (p < 0.00001) and rectal stenosis (p = 0.01). Discoid excision and formal resection were comparable.
CONCLUSION: Colorectal resection has a significantly lower recurrence rate compared to shaving. There is no difference in complications or functional outcomes between discoid excision and formal resection and both have similar recurrence rates.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2024 April 31
Obesity pharmacotherapy in older adults: a narrative review of evidence.International Journal of Obesity 2024 May 7
2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation 2024 May 9
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
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