Han Yijiang, Xia Zhaobo, Guo Shikun, Yu Xiangbo, Li Zhongrong
Department of Pediatric Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 18;12(1):e0170421. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170421. eCollection 2017.
Anorectal malformations (ARMs) are one of the commonest anomalies in neonates. Both laparoscopically assisted anorectal pull-through (LAARP) and posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) can be used for the treatment of ARMs. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare these two approaches in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2000 to August 2016. Both randomized and non-randomized studies, assessing LAARP and PSARP in pediatric patients with high/intermediate ARMs, were included. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay and total postoperative complications. The second outcome measures were rectal prolapse, anal stenosis, wound infection/dehiscence, anorectal manometry, Kelly's clinical score, and Krickenbeck classification. The quality of the randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) respectively. The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADEpro.
From 332 retrieved articles, 1, 1, and 8 of randomized control, prospective and retrospective studies, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. The randomized clinical trial was judged to be of low risk of bias, and the nine cohort studies were of moderate to high quality. 191 and 169 pediatric participants had undergone LAARP and PSARP, respectively. Shorter hospital stays, less wound infection/dehiscence, higher anal canal resting pressure, and a lower incidence of grade 2 or 3 constipation were obtained after LAARP compared with PSARP group values. Besides, the LAARP group had marginally less total postoperative complications. However, the result of operative time was inconclusive; meanwhile, there was no significant difference in rectal prolapse, anal stenosis, anorectal manometry, Kelly's clinical score and Krickenbeck classification.
For pediatric patients with high/intermediate anorectal malformations, LAARP is a better option compared with PSARP. However, the quality of evidence was very low to moderate.
肛门直肠畸形(ARMs)是新生儿中最常见的畸形之一。腹腔镜辅助肛门直肠拖出术(LAARP)和后矢状入路肛门直肠成形术(PSARP)均可用于治疗ARMs。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较这两种方法在术中和术后结果方面的差异。
检索了2000年至2016年8月期间的MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆。纳入了评估LAARP和PSARP治疗高/中度ARMs儿科患者的随机和非随机研究。主要结局指标为手术时间、住院时间和术后总并发症。次要结局指标为直肠脱垂、肛门狭窄、伤口感染/裂开、肛门直肠测压、凯利临床评分和克里肯贝克分类。分别使用Cochrane协作网的偏倚风险工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)评估随机和非随机研究的质量。证据质量由GRADEpro评估。
在检索到的332篇文章中,分别有1篇随机对照研究、1篇前瞻性研究和8篇回顾性研究符合纳入标准。随机临床试验被判定为低偏倚风险,9项队列研究质量为中到高。分别有191例和169例儿科患者接受了LAARP和PSARP。与PSARP组相比,LAARP术后住院时间更短、伤口感染/裂开更少、肛管静息压力更高、2级或3级便秘发生率更低。此外,LAARP组术后总并发症略少。然而,手术时间的结果尚无定论;同时,在直肠脱垂、肛门狭窄、肛门直肠测压、凯利临床评分和克里肯贝克分类方面无显著差异。
对于高/中度肛门直肠畸形的儿科患者,与PSARP相比,LAARP是更好的选择。然而,证据质量非常低至中等。