External rectal prolapse (ERP) is a debilitating condition in which surgery plays an important role. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of abdominal approaches (AA) and perineal approaches (PA) to ERP. This was a PRISMA-compliant systematic review with meta-analysis. Studies published between 1990 and 2021 were retrieved. The primary endpoint was recurrence at the last available follow-up. Secondary endpoints included factors associated with recurrence and function. All studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane tool. Fifteen studies involving 1611 patients (AA = 817; PA = 794) treated for ERP were included, three of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 114 patients (AA = 54; PA = 60)). Duration of follow-up ranged from 12 to 82 months. Recurrence in non-randomized studies was 7.7 per cent in AA versus 20.1 per cent in PA (odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.17 to 0.50; P < 0.001, I² = 45 per cent). In RCTs, there was no significant difference (9.8 per cent versus 16.3 per cent, AA versus PA (OR 0.82, 95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 2.37; P = 0.72, I² = 0.0 per cent)). Age at surgery and duration of follow-up were risk factors for recurrence. Following AA, the recurrence rates were 10.1 per cent and 6.2 per cent in patients aged 65 years and older and less than 65 years of age, respectively (effect size [e.s.] 7.7, 95 per cent c.i. 4.5 to 11.5). Following PA, rates were 27 per cent and 16.3 per cent (e.s. 20.1, 95 per cent c.i. 13 to 28.2). Extending follow-up to at least 40 months increased the likelihood of recurrence. The median duration of hospital stay was 4.9 days after PA versus 7.2 days after AA. Overall, incontinence was less likely after AA (OR 0.32), but constipation occurred more frequently (OR 1.68). Most studies were retrospective, and several outcomes from RCTs were not consistent with those observed in non-RCTs. The overall risk of recurrence of ERP appears to be higher with PA versus AA. Incontinence is less frequent after AA but at the cost of increased constipation. Age at surgery and duration of follow-up are associated with increased risk of recurrence, which warrants adequate reporting of future studies on this topic.

Purpose Although surgery is the most effective treatment for rectal prolapse, a risk of recurrence reported in literature is 6–27%. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the abdominal and perineal approach for surgical treatment of recurrent external rectal prolapse. Methods A systematic search of PubMed and Embase was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and Embase was conducted from January 2000 to May 2024, for studies reporting surgery for recurrent external rectal prolapse. The primary outcome was the recurrence at the last available follow-up. Secondary endpoints included surgical complications and length of postoperative hospitalization. Results Nine studies, with a total of 531 patients, were included in the analysis. The overall recurrence rate among the studies was 26.3% at a mean follow-up time of 30.5 months. The proportional meta-analysis showed a recurrence rate of 27.9% (95% CI 22.54 to 33.85, I² 75.1%, p = 0.0012) after perineal surgery and of 15.6% (95% CI 11.43 to 20.64, I² 63.7%, p = 0.016) after abdominal surgery. Comparing the two approaches, the meta-analysis showed an OR of 0.66 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.17, I² 66.5%, p = 0.029). The OR for complications was 1.44 (95% CI 0.77 to 2.70, I² 0.0%, p = 0.945), while SMD for length of hospital stay was 0.49 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.79, I²- 67.9%, p = 0.077). Conclusions Our meta-analysis revealed that the recurrence rate for the perineal approach was almost double the recurrence rate for the abdominal approach. More randomized trials are needed to determine which is the best approach for patients with recurrent external rectal prolapse.

Background Surgical site infections (SSI) are the most common complication after stoma closure. Circular skin closure (CSC) has been proposed to reduce SSI with comparable or even better outcomes than conventional primary sutures (PS). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare circular with primary skin closure in stoma closure. Method A systematic review of the literature was performed for articles published between January 2010 and June 2023, including all randomized control trials (RCT) on wound infection of adult patients following stoma reversal. The primary outcome was 30-day SSI; secondary outcomes were operative time, length of stay, and incisional hernia. Results Eight RCTs were identified that included a total of 606 patients undergoing stoma closure surgery. Four percent of patients in the CSC group developed SSI, compared to 27% of patients undergoing PS. The 30-day SSI rate was lower after the circular skin closure (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.06–0.21; p < 0.00001, I² = 0%). There was no difference in the operative time (99.2 vs 103.5 min; MD − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.37, 0.03; p = 0.10), length of stay (7.1 vs 7.7 days; MD − 0.34, 95% CI − 0.55, − 0.12; p = 0.002), and incisional hernia rate (2% vs 4%; OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23, 1.60; p = 0.31). Conclusion CSC is associated with lower SSI rate and should be preferred to linear skin closure technique after stoma closure surgery.

Fecal incontinence is a debilitating condition that afflicts many people every year. Its treatment is not simple and the results are not always exciting. Following the failure of medical therapy, the surgical approach consists of numerous possibilities, none of which has been identified as a possible gold standard. The most commonly used procedures are transposition of the gracilis muscle, implantation of a silicone or magnetic artificial anal sphincter, antegrade colonic enemas, and creation of a colostomy. Keywords Fecal incontinence Artificial bowel sphincter Dynamic myoplasty Graciloplasty Antegrade colonic enemas

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a multifaceted disease with variations in aetiology, clinical presentation and prognostic factors. Objectives: This study explores the features and outcomes of sporadic (S-CRC), inflammatory bowel disease-associated CRC (IBD-CRC), early-onset CRC (EO-CRC) and late-onset CRC (LO-CRC). Design: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Statement, comparing S-CRC versus IBD-CRC and EO-CRC versus LO-CRC. Data sources and methods: The literature search was conducted on PubMed and Embase databases. The primary endpoint was the overall 5-year survival rate of CRC. Secondary aims included the features of CRC at diagnosis. Results: Fifty studies and 6,148,851 patients with CRC were included in the analysis. Comparing S-CRC and IBD-CRC, the overall survival was higher in S-CRC (61.88 (range 41.3-78.7) vs 55.54 (51.9-80.9) months). IBD-CRC showed a minor mean age of diagnosis (63.5 (45-78) vs 69.1 ((40-78) years), a minor risk of stage IV (odd ratio (OR) 1.091; 95%CI 1.031-1.155, p = 0.003, I 2 60.24%), higher risk of mucinous tumour (OR 3.150 95%CI 2.797-3.548, p < 0.001, I 2 96.56%), emergency diagnosis (OR 1.598, 95%CI 1.509-1.693, p < 0.001, I 2 77.40%), and synchronous neoplasia (OR 1.942 95%CI 1.705-2.211, p < 0.001, I 2 0.00%). Comparing EO-CRC and LO-CRC, OS was longer in EO-CRC (79.42 (54-96) vs 77.58 (32-92) months). EO-CRC had a higher risk of being diagnosed at stage IV (OR 1.471, 95%CI 1.456-1.486, p < 0.001, I 2 97.12%), and of having mucinous tumours (OR 1.0142, 95%CI 1.015-1.070, p = 0.002, I 2 60.48%) versus LO-CRC. Comparing IBD-CRC, EO-CRC and LO-CRC, IBD-CRC had the shortest OS (61.88 months), the highest rate of mucinous cancer (13%) and emergency diagnosis (24%), whereas metastatic disease at diagnosis was more common in EO-CRC (22.6%). Conclusion: IBD-CRC was associated with a younger mean age at diagnosis, higher risk of mucinous cancers, emergency presentation, and synchronous neoplasia compared to S-CRC. EO-CRC had a higher risk of being diagnosed at stage IV and of mucinous tumours versus LO-CRC. IBD-CRC seemed to have an overall shorter survival rate and a higher prevalence of mucinous cancers, suggesting different pathways of progression and more aggressive features.