Cargando…

Different segmental resection techniques and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal endometriosis: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to analyze the available literature by conducting a systematic review to assess the possible effects of nerve‐sparing segmental resection and conventional bowel resection on postoperative complications for the treatment of colorectal endometriosis. MATERIAL AN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Darici, Ezgi, Salama, Mohamed, Bokor, Attila, Oral, Engin, Dauser, Bernhard, Hudelist, Gernot
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9564442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35661342
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14379
_version_ 1784808645488279552
author Darici, Ezgi
Salama, Mohamed
Bokor, Attila
Oral, Engin
Dauser, Bernhard
Hudelist, Gernot
author_facet Darici, Ezgi
Salama, Mohamed
Bokor, Attila
Oral, Engin
Dauser, Bernhard
Hudelist, Gernot
author_sort Darici, Ezgi
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to analyze the available literature by conducting a systematic review to assess the possible effects of nerve‐sparing segmental resection and conventional bowel resection on postoperative complications for the treatment of colorectal endometriosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pubmed, Clinical Trials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from 1997 to 2021 in order to perform a systematic review. Studies including patients undergoing segmental resection for colorectal endometriosis including adequate follow‐up, data on postoperative complications and postoperative sequelae were enrolled in this review. Selected articles were evaluated and divided in two groups: Nerve‐sparing resection (NSR), and conventional segmental resection not otherwise specified (SRNOS). Within the NSRs, studies mentioning preservation of the rectal artery supply (artery and nerve‐sparing SR – ANSR) and not reporting preservation of the artery supply (NSR not otherwise specified – NSRNOS) were further analyzed. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021250974. RESULTS: A total of 7549 patients from 63 studies were included in the data analysis. Forty‐three of these publications did not mention the preservation or the removal of the hypogastric nerve plexus, or main rectal artery supply and were summarized as SRNOS. The remaining 22 studies were listed under the NSR group. The mean size of the resected deep endometriosis lesions and patients’ body mass index were comparable between SRNOS and NSR. A mean of 3.6% (0–16.6) and 2.3% (0–10.5%) of rectovaginal fistula development was reported in patients who underwent SRNOS and NSR, respectively. Anastomotic leakage rates varied from 0% to 8.6% (mean 1.7 ± 2%) in SRNOS compared with 0% to 8% (mean 1.7 ± 2%) in patients undergoing NSR. Urinary retention (4.5% and 4.9%) and long‐term bladder catheterization (4.9% and 5.6%) were frequently reported in SRNOS and NSR. There was insufficient information about pain or the recurrence rates for women undergoing SRNOS and NSR. CONCLUSIONS: Current data describe the outcomes of different segmental resection techniques. However, the data are inhomogeneous and not sufficient to reach a conclusion regarding a possible advantage of one technique over the other.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9564442
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95644422022-12-06 Different segmental resection techniques and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal endometriosis: A systematic review Darici, Ezgi Salama, Mohamed Bokor, Attila Oral, Engin Dauser, Bernhard Hudelist, Gernot Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Systematic Reviews INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to analyze the available literature by conducting a systematic review to assess the possible effects of nerve‐sparing segmental resection and conventional bowel resection on postoperative complications for the treatment of colorectal endometriosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pubmed, Clinical Trials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from 1997 to 2021 in order to perform a systematic review. Studies including patients undergoing segmental resection for colorectal endometriosis including adequate follow‐up, data on postoperative complications and postoperative sequelae were enrolled in this review. Selected articles were evaluated and divided in two groups: Nerve‐sparing resection (NSR), and conventional segmental resection not otherwise specified (SRNOS). Within the NSRs, studies mentioning preservation of the rectal artery supply (artery and nerve‐sparing SR – ANSR) and not reporting preservation of the artery supply (NSR not otherwise specified – NSRNOS) were further analyzed. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021250974. RESULTS: A total of 7549 patients from 63 studies were included in the data analysis. Forty‐three of these publications did not mention the preservation or the removal of the hypogastric nerve plexus, or main rectal artery supply and were summarized as SRNOS. The remaining 22 studies were listed under the NSR group. The mean size of the resected deep endometriosis lesions and patients’ body mass index were comparable between SRNOS and NSR. A mean of 3.6% (0–16.6) and 2.3% (0–10.5%) of rectovaginal fistula development was reported in patients who underwent SRNOS and NSR, respectively. Anastomotic leakage rates varied from 0% to 8.6% (mean 1.7 ± 2%) in SRNOS compared with 0% to 8% (mean 1.7 ± 2%) in patients undergoing NSR. Urinary retention (4.5% and 4.9%) and long‐term bladder catheterization (4.9% and 5.6%) were frequently reported in SRNOS and NSR. There was insufficient information about pain or the recurrence rates for women undergoing SRNOS and NSR. CONCLUSIONS: Current data describe the outcomes of different segmental resection techniques. However, the data are inhomogeneous and not sufficient to reach a conclusion regarding a possible advantage of one technique over the other. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9564442/ /pubmed/35661342 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14379 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews
Darici, Ezgi
Salama, Mohamed
Bokor, Attila
Oral, Engin
Dauser, Bernhard
Hudelist, Gernot
Different segmental resection techniques and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal endometriosis: A systematic review
title Different segmental resection techniques and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal endometriosis: A systematic review
title_full Different segmental resection techniques and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal endometriosis: A systematic review
title_fullStr Different segmental resection techniques and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal endometriosis: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Different segmental resection techniques and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal endometriosis: A systematic review
title_short Different segmental resection techniques and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal endometriosis: A systematic review
title_sort different segmental resection techniques and postoperative complications in patients with colorectal endometriosis: a systematic review
topic Systematic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9564442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35661342
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14379
work_keys_str_mv AT dariciezgi differentsegmentalresectiontechniquesandpostoperativecomplicationsinpatientswithcolorectalendometriosisasystematicreview
AT salamamohamed differentsegmentalresectiontechniquesandpostoperativecomplicationsinpatientswithcolorectalendometriosisasystematicreview
AT bokorattila differentsegmentalresectiontechniquesandpostoperativecomplicationsinpatientswithcolorectalendometriosisasystematicreview
AT oralengin differentsegmentalresectiontechniquesandpostoperativecomplicationsinpatientswithcolorectalendometriosisasystematicreview
AT dauserbernhard differentsegmentalresectiontechniquesandpostoperativecomplicationsinpatientswithcolorectalendometriosisasystematicreview
AT hudelistgernot differentsegmentalresectiontechniquesandpostoperativecomplicationsinpatientswithcolorectalendometriosisasystematicreview