Cochrane · systematic review · CD001758
Surgery for complete (full‐thickness) rectal prolapse in adults
Tou, S, Brown, SR, Nelson, RL · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
IncontinenceAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
6
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 6 · 100%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Perineal versus abdominal approach for full‐thickness rectal prolapse in adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse Perineal vs abdominal approach | OR 0.7 [0.17, 2.88] | 1 study · 44 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Vaizey incontinence score 3 years post‐op Perineal vs abdominal approach | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 16 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of patients with postoperative complications Perineal vs abdominal approach | OR 0.65 [0.19, 2.23] | 1 study · 44 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Bowel function (bowel thermometer) Perineal vs abdominal approach | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 9 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Quality of life score (EQ‐5D) at 3 years Perineal vs abdominal approach | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 14 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Straining at 3 years post‐op Perineal vs abdominal approach | OR 0.06 [0, 1.33] | 1 study · 20 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |