Table 3 Literature review for sample size calculation
Delorme’s procedure | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author et al. | Patients (m/f) | Study design | Recurrences (%) | Improvement incontinence % | Improvement obstipation % |
Senapati (1994) | 32 (8/24) | Retrospective | 12.5 | 41 | 16 |
Oliver (1994) | 40 (5/35) | Retrospective | 22 | 68 | n.s. |
Tobin (1994) | 49 (6/43) | Prospective | 26 | 50 | n.s. |
Lechaux (1995) | 85 (8/77) | Retrospective | 13.5 | 69 | n.s. |
Pescatori (1998) | 33 | Retrospective | 21 | n.s. | n.s. |
Watts (2000) | 101 (10/91) | Retrospective | 30 | 89 | 44 |
Watkins (2003) | 52 (6/46) | Retrospective | 10 | 58 | n.s. |
Tsunoda (2003) | 31 (7/24) | Retrospective | 13 | 63 | 38 |
Marchal (2005) | 60 (7/53) | Retrospective | 23 | 42 | 54 |
(Laparoscopic) Resection rectopexy | |||||
Author et al. | Patients (m/f) | Study design | Recurrences (%) | Improvement incontinence % | Improvement obstipation % |
Huber (1995) | 42 (2/40) | Prospective | 0 | 65 | 41 |
Stevenson (1998) | 30 (1/29) | Prospective | 0 | 70 | 64 |
Bruch (1999) | 72 (4/68) | Prospective | 0 | 64 | 76 |
Kim (1999) | 176 (16/160) | Retrospective | 5 | 55 | 43 |
Kellokumpu (2000) | 34 (3/31) | Prospective | 7 | n.s. | 67 |
Carpelan (2005) | 75 (11/64) | Retrospective | 3 | n.s. | n.s. |
Ashari (2005) | 117 (1/116) | Prospective | 2.5 | 62 | 69 |
Kariv (2005) | 111 (14/97) | Prospective | 11 | n.s. | n.s. |