Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full thickness prolapse.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full thickness prolapse.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse only.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse only.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 3 Number of patients with residual faecal incontinence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 3 Number of patients with residual faecal incontinence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 4 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 4 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 5 Complications requiring surgical interventions.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 5 Complications requiring surgical interventions.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 6 Maximum resting pressure (cm/water).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 6 Maximum resting pressure (cm/water).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 7 Maximum squeeze pressure (cm/water).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 7 Maximum squeeze pressure (cm/water).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 8 Rectal compliance (ml/cm water).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy, Outcome 8 Rectal compliance (ml/cm water).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Open abdominal Ivalon sponge rectopexy versus open abdominal suture rectopexy, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Open abdominal Ivalon sponge rectopexy versus open abdominal suture rectopexy, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Open abdominal Ivalon sponge rectopexy versus open abdominal suture rectopexy, Outcome 2 Number of patients with postoperative faecal incontinence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Open abdominal Ivalon sponge rectopexy versus open abdominal suture rectopexy, Outcome 2 Number of patients with postoperative faecal incontinence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Open abdominal Ivalon sponge rectopexy versus open abdominal suture rectopexy, Outcome 3 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Open abdominal Ivalon sponge rectopexy versus open abdominal suture rectopexy, Outcome 3 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Open abdominal Ivalon sponge rectopexy versus open abdominal suture rectopexy, Outcome 4 Number of patients with constipation after surgery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Open abdominal Ivalon sponge rectopexy versus open abdominal suture rectopexy, Outcome 4 Number of patients with constipation after surgery.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 3 Number of patients with residual faecal incontinence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 3 Number of patients with residual faecal incontinence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 4 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 4 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 5 Number of patients with constipation after surgery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 5 Number of patients with constipation after surgery.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 6 Incontinence score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy, Outcome 6 Incontinence score.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full thickness rectal prolapse.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full thickness rectal prolapse.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse only.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse only.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 3 Number of patients with constipation.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 3 Number of patients with constipation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 4 Constipation score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 4 Constipation score.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 5 Defaecation frequency (per day).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 5 Defaecation frequency (per day).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 6 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 6 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 7 Resting anal pressure (mmHg).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 7 Resting anal pressure (mmHg).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 8 Anal squeeze pressures mmHg.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.8

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 8 Anal squeeze pressures mmHg.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 9 Compliance ml/mmHg.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.9

Comparison 4 Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments, Outcome 9 Compliance ml/mmHg.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 2 Incontinence score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 2 Incontinence score.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 3 Number of patients with defaecatory problems.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 3 Number of patients with defaecatory problems.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 4 Hospital stay.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 4 Hospital stay.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 5 Recovery time.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 5 Recovery time.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 6 Resting anal pressure (mmHg).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 6 Resting anal pressure (mmHg).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 7 Squeeze pressure (mmHg).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 7 Squeeze pressure (mmHg).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 8 Threshold volume (ml).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5 Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique, Outcome 8 Threshold volume (ml).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse only.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse only.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 3 Incontinence score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 3 Incontinence score.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 4 Number of patients with constipation after surgery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 4 Number of patients with constipation after surgery.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 5 Operation time (minutes).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 5 Operation time (minutes).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 6 Length of hospital stay (days).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 6 Length of hospital stay (days).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 7 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.7

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 7 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 8 Total cost (US dollars).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.8

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 8 Total cost (US dollars).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 9 Maximum resting anal pressure (cm/water.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.9

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 9 Maximum resting anal pressure (cm/water.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 10 Maximum squeeze pressure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.10

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 10 Maximum squeeze pressure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 11 Maximum rectal volume (ml).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.11

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 11 Maximum rectal volume (ml).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 12 Rectal capacity (ml).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.12

Comparison 6 Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy, Outcome 12 Rectal capacity (ml).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 2 Number of patients with residual faecal incontinence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 2 Number of patients with residual faecal incontinence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 3 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 3 Number of patients with post‐operative complications.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 4 Number of patients with constipation due to surgery.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 4 Number of patients with constipation due to surgery.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 5 Ano‐rectal angle (post‐operative).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 5 Ano‐rectal angle (post‐operative).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 6 Maximum resting anal pressure (mmHg).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 6 Maximum resting anal pressure (mmHg).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 7 Volume to first sensation (ml).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 7 Volume to first sensation (ml).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 8 Maximum rectal volumes (ml).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.8

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 8 Maximum rectal volumes (ml).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 9 Rectal compliance (mmHg/ml).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.9

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 9 Rectal compliance (mmHg/ml).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 10 Post‐operative transit time (days).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.10

Comparison 7 Resection versus no resection rectopexy, Outcome 10 Post‐operative transit time (days).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Comparison 1. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of patients with recurrent full thickness prolapse Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse only Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Number of patients with residual faecal incontinence Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Number of patients with post‐operative complications Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Complications requiring surgical interventions Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Maximum resting pressure (cm/water) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Maximum squeeze pressure (cm/water) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Rectal compliance (ml/cm water) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy versus abdominal resection rectopexy
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Open abdominal Ivalon sponge rectopexy versus open abdominal suture rectopexy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Number of patients with postoperative faecal incontinence Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Number of patients with post‐operative complications Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Number of patients with constipation after surgery Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Open abdominal Ivalon sponge rectopexy versus open abdominal suture rectopexy
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Polyglycolic versus polypropylene

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Polyglycolic versus polyglactin

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Polyglycolic versus polypropylene

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Polyglycolic versus polyglactin

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Number of patients with residual faecal incontinence Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Polyglycolic versus polypropylene

0

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Polyglycolic versus polyglactin

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Number of patients with post‐operative complications Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Polyglycolic versus polypropylene

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Polyglycolic versus polyglactin

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Number of patients with constipation after surgery Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 Polyglycolic versus polypropylene

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Polyglycolic versus polyglactin

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Incontinence score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 Polyglycolic versus polypropylene

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Polyglycolic versus polyglactin

0

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Open abdominal polyglycolic acid mesh versus open polyglactin or polypropylene mesh rectopexy
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 4. Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of patients with recurrent full thickness rectal prolapse Show forest plot

2

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

15.35 [0.73, 321.58]

2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse only Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Number of patients with constipation Show forest plot

2

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.32 [0.08, 1.23]

4 Constipation score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Defaecation frequency (per day) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Number of patients with post‐operative complications Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Resting anal pressure (mmHg) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Anal squeeze pressures mmHg Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Compliance ml/mmHg Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Open rectopexy with preservation versus division lateral ligaments
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 5. Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Incontinence score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Number of patients with defaecatory problems Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Hospital stay Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Recovery time Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Resting anal pressure (mmHg) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Squeeze pressure (mmHg) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Threshold volume (ml) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Conventional diathermy and handsewn rectosigmoidectomy versus harmonic scalpel and stapled technique
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 6. Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse only Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Incontinence score Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Number of patients with constipation after surgery Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Operation time (minutes) Show forest plot

2

60

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

67.25 [51.61, 82.88]

6 Length of hospital stay (days) Show forest plot

2

60

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.35 [‐3.33, ‐1.37]

7 Number of patients with post‐operative complications Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Total cost (US dollars) Show forest plot

2

60

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.84 [‐1.41, ‐0.28]

9 Maximum resting anal pressure (cm/water Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10 Maximum squeeze pressure Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11 Maximum rectal volume (ml) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12 Rectal capacity (ml) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Laparoscopic versus open rectopexy
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 7. Resection versus no resection rectopexy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of patients with recurrent full‐thickness prolapse Show forest plot

2

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number of patients with residual faecal incontinence Show forest plot

2

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.90 [0.52, 6.99]

3 Number of patients with post‐operative complications Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Number of patients with constipation due to surgery Show forest plot

2

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [0.01, 0.44]

5 Ano‐rectal angle (post‐operative) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Maximum resting anal pressure (mmHg) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Volume to first sensation (ml) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Maximum rectal volumes (ml) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Rectal compliance (mmHg/ml) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10 Post‐operative transit time (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Resection versus no resection rectopexy
Ir a la tabla de la revisión