Ostomy continence devices: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

AIM: Colostomy complication rates range widely from 10% to 70%. The psychological burden on patients, leading to lifestyle changes and decreased quality of life (QoL), is one of the largest factors. The aim of this work was to assess the history and efficacy of ostomy continence devices in improving continence and QoL. METHOD: In this PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov for studies on continence devices for all ostomies up to April 2023. Primary outcomes were continence and improvement in QoL. Secondary outcomes were leakage, patient's device preference and complications. Risk of Bias 2 and the revised tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-1) were used to assess risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies assessed devices from 1978 to 2022. The two main types identified were ball-valve devices and plug systems. Conseal and Vitala were the two main devices with significant evidence allowing for pooled analyses. Conseal, the only currently marketed device, had a pooled rate of continence of 67.4%, QoL improvement was 74.9%, patient preference over a traditional appliance was 69.1%, leakage was 10.1% and complications was 13.7%. Since 2011, five studies have investigated experimental devices on both human and animal models. CONCLUSION: Ostomy continence has been a long-standing goal without a consistently reliable solution. We propose that selective and short-term usage of continence devices may lead to improved continence and QoL in ostomy patients. Further research is needed to develop a reliable daily device for ostomy continence. Future investigation should include the needs of ileostomates.

Outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Transanal dissection is increasingly used in laparoscopic surgery for total mesorectal excision of lower rectal cancers. Several studies compared outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection, yet there is a paucity of high-quality evidence. This meta-analysis aimed to provide a pooled comparative analysis of outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection based on evidence from randomized controlled trials. METHODS: This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2022-compliant systematic review of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through March 2023. The Medical Subject Headings terms used in the search were Rectal neoplasms, Proctectomy, Laparoscopy, and Transanal. The main outcomes included operative and pathologic outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias version 2 tool, and certainty of the evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary study outcome was conversion to open surgery. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (1,339 patients; median age 61.2 years) were included; 671 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection, and 668 underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection. Both groups were similar in age, body mass index, and disease stage, but the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection group had a higher male-to-female ratio, received neoadjuvant therapy and had a hand-sewn anastomosis more often. Patients who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection had lower conversion rates (odds ratio = 0.179; P = .001), a higher likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision (odds ratio = 1.435; P = .025), and fewer harvested lymph nodes (weighted mean difference = -1.926; P = .035). The groups had similar operative times (weighted mean difference = -3.476; P = .398), total complications (odds ratio = 0.94; P = .665), major complications (odds ratio = 1.112; P = .66), anastomotic leak (odds ratio = 0.67; P = .432), positive circumferential resection margin (odds ratio = 0.549; P = .155), and positive distal margins (odds ratio = 0.559; P = .171). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection was associated with lower odds of conversion to open surgery, greater likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision, and fewer harvested lymph nodes than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection.