Comparison of laparoscopic subtotal colectomy with posterior vaginal suspension and laparoscopic subtotal colectomy with transvaginal repair for patients with slow-transit constipation complicated with rectocele: a non-randomized comparative study in a single center.

BACKGROUND: Slow-transit constipation complicated with rectocele is a mixed constipation difficult to treat by surgery. Different hospitals and surgeons may employ different surgical procedures. The present study aims to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic subtotal colectomy (LSC) with posterior vaginal suspension and LSC with transvaginal repair for patients having refractory slow-transit constipation complicated with rectocele. METHODS: This paper is a retrospective study of 64 patients having refractory slow-transit constipation complicated with rectocele. Admitted from January 2002 to December 2012, the 64 patients were non-randomly divided into two groups: patients who underwent LSC with posterior vaginal suspension (Group A, 36 patients) and patients who underwent LSC with transvaginal repair (Group B, 28 patients). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in preoperative general characteristics and Wexner constipation score between Group A and Group B. There was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in operative time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. One month after the surgery, there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in early postoperative complications, constipation recurrence rate, degree of improvement in constipation symptoms, and Wexner constipation score between the two groups. But 1-year follow-up results show that there was statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) in constipation recurrence rate, gastrointestinal quality of life index, the degree of improvement in constipation symptoms, and Wexner constipation score between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with the LSC with transvaginal repair, the LSC with posterior vaginal suspension demonstrated better efficacy in treating refractory slow-transit constipation complicated with rectocele.

Efficacy and complications of polyethylene glycols for treatment of constipation in children: a meta-analysis.

Constipation is a common childhood complaint. In 90% to 95% of children, constipation is functional, which means that there is no objective evidence of an underlying pathological condition. Polyethylene glycol (PEG or macrogol) solution is an osmotic laxative agent that is absorbed in only trace amounts from the gastrointestinal tract and routinely used to treat chronic constipation in adults. Here, we report the results of a meta-analysis of PEG-based laxatives compared with lactulose, milk of magnesia (magnesium hydroxide), oral liquid paraffin (mineral oil), or acacia fiber, psyllium fiber, and fructose in children. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and involved searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases up to February 10, 2014, using the keywords (Constipation OR Functional Constipation OR Fecal Impaction) AND (Children) AND (Polyethylene Glycol OR Laxative). Primary efficacy outcomes included a number of stool passages/wk and percentage of patients who reported satisfactory stool consistency. Secondary safety outcomes included diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting, pain or straining at defecation, bloating or flatulence, hard stool consistency, poor palatability, and rectal bleeding. We identified 231 articles, 27 of which were suitable for full-text review and 10 of which were used in the meta-analysis. Patients who were treated with PEG experienced more successful disimpaction compared with those treated with non-PEG laxatives. Treatment-related adverse events were acceptable and generally well tolerated. PEG-based laxatives are effective and safe for chronic constipation and for resolving fecal impaction in children. Children's acceptance of PEG-based laxatives appears to be better than non-PEG laxatives. Optimal dosages, routes of administration, and PEG regimens should be determined in future randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses.