AIM:To assess effectiveness, complications, recurrence rate, and recent improvements of the anterior rectopexy procedure for treatment of total rectal prolapse.METHODS:MEDLINE, Pub Med, EMBASE, and other relevant data...AIM:To assess effectiveness, complications, recurrence rate, and recent improvements of the anterior rectopexy procedure for treatment of total rectal prolapse.METHODS:MEDLINE, Pub Med, EMBASE, and other relevant database were searched to identify studies.Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies and original articles in English language, with more than 10 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse, with a follow-up over 3 mo were considered for the review.RESULTS:Twelve non-randomized case series studies with 574 patients were included in the review.No surgical mortality was described.Conversion was needed in 17 cases(2.9%), most often due to difficult adhesiolysis.Twenty eight patients(4.8%) presented with major complications.Seven(1.2%) mesh-related complications were reported.Most frequent complications were urinary tract infection and urinary retention.Mean recurrence rate was 4.7% with a median follow-up of 23 mo.Improvement of constipation ranged from 3%-72% of the patients and worsening or new onset occurred in 0%-20%.Incontinence improved in 31%-84% patients who presented fecal incontinence at various stages.Evaluation of functional score was disparate between studies.CONCLUSION:Based on the low long-term recurrence rate and favorable outcome data in terms of low de novo constipation rate, improvement of anal incontinence, and low complications rate, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy seems to emerge as an efficient procedure for the treatment of patients with total rectal prolapse.展开更多
Irreproducibility of research causes a major concern in academia.This concern affects all study designs regardless of scientific fields.Without testing the reproducibility and replicability it is almost impossible to ...Irreproducibility of research causes a major concern in academia.This concern affects all study designs regardless of scientific fields.Without testing the reproducibility and replicability it is almost impossible to repeat the research and to gain the same or similar results.In addition,irreproducibility limits the translation of research findings into practice where the same results are expected.To find the solutions,the Interacademy Partnership for Health gathered academics from established networks of science,medicine and engineering around a table to introduce seven strategies that can enhance the reproducibility:pre-registration,open methods,open data,collaboration,automation,reporting guidelines,and post-publication reviews.The current editorial discusses the generalisability and practicality of these strategies to systematic reviews and claims that systematic reviews have even a greater potential than other research designs to lead the movement toward the reproducibility of research.Moreover,I discuss the potential of reproducibility,on the other hand,to upgrade the systematic review from review to research.Furthermore,there are references to the successful and ongoing practices from collaborative efforts around the world to encourage the systematic reviewers,the journal editors and publishers,the organizations linked to evidence synthesis,and the funders and policy makers to facilitate this movement and to gain the public trust in research.展开更多
文摘AIM:To assess effectiveness, complications, recurrence rate, and recent improvements of the anterior rectopexy procedure for treatment of total rectal prolapse.METHODS:MEDLINE, Pub Med, EMBASE, and other relevant database were searched to identify studies.Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies and original articles in English language, with more than 10 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse, with a follow-up over 3 mo were considered for the review.RESULTS:Twelve non-randomized case series studies with 574 patients were included in the review.No surgical mortality was described.Conversion was needed in 17 cases(2.9%), most often due to difficult adhesiolysis.Twenty eight patients(4.8%) presented with major complications.Seven(1.2%) mesh-related complications were reported.Most frequent complications were urinary tract infection and urinary retention.Mean recurrence rate was 4.7% with a median follow-up of 23 mo.Improvement of constipation ranged from 3%-72% of the patients and worsening or new onset occurred in 0%-20%.Incontinence improved in 31%-84% patients who presented fecal incontinence at various stages.Evaluation of functional score was disparate between studies.CONCLUSION:Based on the low long-term recurrence rate and favorable outcome data in terms of low de novo constipation rate, improvement of anal incontinence, and low complications rate, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy seems to emerge as an efficient procedure for the treatment of patients with total rectal prolapse.
文摘Irreproducibility of research causes a major concern in academia.This concern affects all study designs regardless of scientific fields.Without testing the reproducibility and replicability it is almost impossible to repeat the research and to gain the same or similar results.In addition,irreproducibility limits the translation of research findings into practice where the same results are expected.To find the solutions,the Interacademy Partnership for Health gathered academics from established networks of science,medicine and engineering around a table to introduce seven strategies that can enhance the reproducibility:pre-registration,open methods,open data,collaboration,automation,reporting guidelines,and post-publication reviews.The current editorial discusses the generalisability and practicality of these strategies to systematic reviews and claims that systematic reviews have even a greater potential than other research designs to lead the movement toward the reproducibility of research.Moreover,I discuss the potential of reproducibility,on the other hand,to upgrade the systematic review from review to research.Furthermore,there are references to the successful and ongoing practices from collaborative efforts around the world to encourage the systematic reviewers,the journal editors and publishers,the organizations linked to evidence synthesis,and the funders and policy makers to facilitate this movement and to gain the public trust in research.
