CAPS PaperLoop versus divided colostomy for the management of anorectal malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe ideal colostomy type for patients with anorectal malformations (ARM) is undetermined. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term complications comparing loop and divided colostomies.MethodsAfter review registration (PROSPERO: CRD42016036481), multiple databases were searched for comparative studies without language or date restrictions. Gray literature was sought. Complications investigated included stomal prolapse/hernia/retraction, wound infections, and urinary tract infections (UTIs). Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis of selected complications was performed using Revman 5.3, with p < 0.05 considered significant.ResultsTwenty-six studies were included, and four were multi-institutional. Reporting standards were highly variable. Studies scored between 6 and 9 of possible nine stars on the NOS. Overall, 3866 neonates with ARM were incorporated, in which 2241 loop colostomies and 1994 divided colostomies were reported. Of 10 studies reporting short-term complications, the overall rate was 27%. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the incidence of UTIs, (OR: 2.55 [0.76, 8.58], p = 0.12), while loop colostomies had a significantly higher prolapse rate (See figure). No publication bias was noted.ConclusionsA colostomy for patients with an ARM is a source of considerable morbidity. Divided colostomies reduce the risk of subsequent prolapse and may represent the preferred approach.Level of evidence3A