Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults

Ventral mesh rectopexy for recurrent rectal prolapse after Altemeier perineal proctosigmoidectomy: feasibility and outcomes

PURPOSE

Recurrence of rectal prolapse following the Altemeier procedure is reported with rates up to 40%. The optimal surgical management of recurrences has limited data available. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a favored procedure for primary rectal prolapse, but its role in managing recurrences after Altemeier is unclear. VMR for recurrent prolapse involves implanting the mesh on the colon, which has a thinner wall, more active peristalsis, no mesorectum, less peritoneum available for covering the mesh, and potential diverticula. These factors can affect mesh-related complications such as erosion, migration, or infection. This study assessed the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of VMR for recurrent rectal prolapse after the Altemeier procedure.

METHODS

We queried our prospectively maintained database between 01/01/2008 and 06/30/2022 for patients who had experienced a recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse following Altemeier's perineal proctosigmoidectomy and subsequently underwent ventral mesh rectopexy.

RESULTS

Ten women with a median age of 67 years (range 61) and a median BMI of 27.8 kg/m2 (range 9) were included. Five (50%) had only one Altemeier, and five (50%) had multiple rectal prolapse surgeries, including Altemeier before VMR. No mesh-related complications occurred during a 65-month (range 165) median follow-up period. Three patients (30%) experienced minor postoperative complications unrelated to the mesh. Long-term complications were chronic abdominal pain and incisional hernia in one patient, respectively. One out of five (20%) patients with only one previous prolapse repair had a recurrence, while all patients (100%) with multiple prior repairs recurred.

CONCLUSION

Mesh implantation on the colon is possible without adverse reactions. However, high recurrence rates in patients with multiple previous surgeries raise doubts about using VMR for secondary or tertiary recurrences.

Technical feasibility and perioperative outcome of laparoscopic resection rectopexy with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) and intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA)

Purpose

Laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy (LRR) is the most effective treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome but is associated with a higher postoperative morbidity compared to transanal approaches. Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) has been described as a promising technique to lower morbidity in colorectal cancer surgery. In this study, we analyze the technical challenges of adapting this technique to LRR and compare the perioperative results to the conventional laparoscopic technique with specimen extraction via minilaparotomy and extracorporeal anastomosis.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 45 patients who underwent laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy due to obstructive defecation syndrome at our institutions. From September 2020 to July 2021, we treated 17 consecutive patients with NOSE-LRR and compared the results to a historic cohort of 28 consecutive patients treated with conventional laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy plus minilaparotomy (LAP-LRR) for specimen extraction between January 2019 and July 2020. Assessed were patient- and disease-specific parameters, operative time, hospital and postoperative complications and subjective patient satisfaction after 6 months of follow-up.

Results

Both groups were comparable in terms of gender distribution, age, and comorbidities. The median operating time was similar and the perioperative morbidity was comparable in both groups. The length of stay in hospital was significantly shorter in the NOSE-LRR group (median 6 vs 8 days).

Conclusion

NOSE-LRR can be implemented safely, performed in a comparable operating time, and is associated with a comparable rate of postoperative complications. The technique offers the a potentially fast postoperative recovery compared to the conventional laparoscopic technique.

Mesh safety in pelvic surgery: Our experience and outcome of biological mesh used in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) continues to be a popular treatment option for rectal prolapse, obstructive defecation/faecal incontinence and rectoceles. In recent years there have been concerns regarding the safety of mesh placements in the pelvis.

AIM

To assess the safety of the mesh and the outcome of the procedure.

METHODS

Eighty-six patients underwent LVMR with Permacol (Biological) mesh from 2012 to 2018 at University Hospital Wishaw. Forty were treated for obstructive defecation secondary to prolapse, rectocele or internal rectal intussusception, 38 for mixed symptoms obstructive defecation and incontinence, 5 for pain and bleeding secondary to full thickness prolapse and 3 with symptoms of incontinence. Questionnaires for the calculation of Wexner scores for constipation and incontinence were completed by the patients who were followed up in the clinic 12 wk after surgery and again in 6-12 mo. The average review of their notes was 18.3 ± 4.2 mo.

RESULTS

The median Wexner scores for constipation pre-operatively and post-operatively were 14.5 [Interquartile range (IQR): 10.5-18.5] and 3 (IQR: 1-6), respectively, while the median Wexner score for faecal incontinence was 11 (IQR: 7-15) and 2 (IQR: 0-5), respectively (P < 0.01). There were 4 (4.6%) recurrences, 2 cases that presented with erosion of a suture through the rectum and one with diskitis. No mesh complications or mortalities were recorded.

CONCLUSION

LVMR using a Permacol mesh is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of obstructive defecation/faecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, rectoceles and internal rectal prolapse/intussusception.

Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Several different procedures have been described for surgical treatment of rectal prolapse and consensus on the optimal approach has not been reached. The Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial was performed with the aim to compare the outcomes after the most common surgical approaches to rectal prolapse.

METHOD

A multicentre randomized trial was conducted from 2000 to 2009. Patients were randomized between a perineal or an abdominal approach for correction of rectal prolapse (randomization A) if eligible for any procedures. Patients considered unsuitable for random allocation were only included in randomizations B or C. Patients in randomization B (perineal group) were randomized to Delorme's or Altemeier's procedures and those in randomization C (abdominal group) to suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy. Primary outcomes were bowel function and quality of life, measured using Wexner incontinence score and RAND-36, and secondary outcomes were complications and recurrence at 3 years.

RESULTS

During the study period, 134 patients were randomized: 18 in randomization A group, 80 in randomization B group and 54 in randomization C group; of these, 122 patients underwent surgery. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. Improvements in Wexner and RAND-36 scores were seen but with no significant difference between the groups. Health change scores were significantly improved from baseline up to 1 year after surgery (P < 0.001). At 3 years, recurrence rates were two of seven patients for abdominal versus five of eight patients for perineal approach (P = 0.315), 18 of 31 patients (58 per cent) for Delorme's versus 15 of 30 patients (50 per cent) for Altemeier's (P = 0.611) and four of 19 patients (21 per cent) for suture rectopexy versus two of 21 patients (10 per cent) for resection rectopexy (P = 0.398). There were no significant differences regarding postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

For all procedures, significant improvements from baseline in health change scores were noted after surgery. Recurrence rates were higher than previously reported. Registration number: NCT04893642 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Three years prospective clinical and radiologic follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy

BACKGROUND

When Rectocele is part of a complex pelvic organ prolapse, a full repair is recommended. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results after laparoscopic surgery in patients with symptomatic rectocele and III/IV stage vaginal vault prolapse METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of women with symptomatic rectoceles and middle compartment prolapse operated on between 2013 and 2015, who underwent a laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy with synthetic Y mesh attached to puborectalis muscles, the anterior and posterior vagina wall and the sacrum. The clinical outcomes measured were symptoms of prolapse, obstructive defecation syndrome and quality of life. Radiological outcomes were distance of the vaginal vault below pubococcigeal line and depth of rectovaginal wall protrusion in dynamic pelvic resonance.

RESULTS

33 patients were included. 32 of them remained asymptomatic after a three years follow-up. Significant differences were shown in the obstructed defecation score and quality of life after 6, 12 and 36 months compared to preoperatively. No differences were identified when the postoperative results were compared. Significant differences were shown in preoperative vaginal vault prolapse (3.2 cms ± 0.8 SD below the pubococcigeal Line) and rectocele size, compared with 1 and 3 years after surgery. There were no significant differences in vaginal vault prolapse when compared after 1 and 3 years. When rectocele size after 1 and 3 years was compared, significant differences were shown, but only one clinical recurrence (3%) was identified after a mean follow-up of 47 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy in patients with symptomatic rectocele and III/IV vaginal vault prolapse solves the constipation and obstructed defecation with an excellent quality of life and low clinical recurrences. Radiological deterioration, especially in rectocele size, was identified in the mid-term follow-up without clinical significance.

Midterm functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Although long-term crude outcomes of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse (ERP) have been documented, repetitive functional and quality of life (QOL) assessments are scarce. This study assessed midterm annual functional results and QOL after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for ERP.

METHODS

This study consisted of 58 patients and was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, the Constipation Scoring System, and QOL instruments (ie 36-item Short-Form Health Survey and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale) were administered before and after operation.

RESULTS

There was no mortality or major morbidity. After a median follow-up of 49 months (6-92 months), recurrence of ERP was noted in one patient (2%). There were no mesh-related complications. The median Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score was significantly reduced at 3 months (34 [10-61] vs 12 [0-50], P < 0.0001) and remained significantly reduced for 5 years. The median Constipation Scoring System score was significantly reduced at 3 months (14 [9-20] vs 7 [0-16], P < 0.0001) and remained significantly reduced for 4 years. No patients developed new-onset constipation. All of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scales significantly improved overtime for 4 years. All of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scales were significantly improved at 3 and 6 months, but none of the scales significantly improved after 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for ERP was associated with low morbidity, low recurrence, and a midterm improvement in function and fecal incontinence-specific QOL.

Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: Functional Outcomes after Surgery

Aims  Rectal prolapse is a debilitating and unpleasant condition adversely affecting the quality of life. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is recognized as one of the treatment options. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes after a standardized LVMR.

Methods  A cohort of patients who underwent LVMR from 2011 to 2015 were contacted and asked to fill questionnaires about their symptoms before and after the surgery. Three questionnaires based on measurement of Wexner fecal incontinence (WFI), obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS), and Birmingham Bowel and Urinary Symptom (BBUS) scores were used to assess the changes in postoperative functional outcomes. Some additional questions were also added to further assess bowel dysfunction.

Results  There were 58 female patients with a mean age of 62.74 ± 15.20 (26–86) years in this cohort. About 70% of the patients participated in the study and returned the filled questionnaires. There was a significant overall improvement across all three scores (WFI: p  = 0.001, ODS: p  = 0.001, and BBUS: p  = 0.001). Some individual components in the scoring systems did not improve to patient's satisfaction. No perioperative complication or conversion to an open procedure was reported in this study. Three recurrences were seen in the redo cases.

Conclusion  LVMR is a promising way of dealing with rectal prolapse. A careful patient selection, appropriate preoperative workup, and a meticulous surgical technique undoubtedly transform the postoperative outcomes.

Short term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse

Objective:

To find out the short term outcomes of effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

Methods:

It was a descriptive case series study of 31 consecutive patients of rectal prolapse in Colorectal division of Ward 2, Department of General surgery, Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Center, Karachi, from November 2009 to November 2015. These patients were admitted through outpatient department with complains of something coming out of anus, constipation and per rectal bleeding. All patients were clinically examined and baseline investigations were done. All patients underwent laparoscopic repair with ventral mesh placement on rectum.

Results:

Among 31 patients, mean age was 45 years range (20 - 72). While females were 14(45%) and males 17(55%). We observed variety of presentations, including solitary rectal ulcers (n=4) and rectocele (n=3) but full thickness rectal prolapse was predominant(n=24). All patients had laparoscopic repair with mesh placement. Average hospital stay was three days. Out of 31 patients, there was one (3.2%) recurrence. Port site minor infection in 3(9.7%) patients, while conversion to open approach was done in two (6.4%), postoperative ileus observed in two (6.4%) patients. one(3.2%) patient developed intractable back pain and mesh was removed six weeks after the operation. one(4.8%) patient complained of abdominal pain off and on postoperatively. No patient developed denovo or worsening constipation while constipation was improved in 21 patients (67%). Sexual dysfunction such as dysperunia in females and impotence in males was not detected in follow up.

Conclusions:

This study provides the limited evidence that nerve sparing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is safe and effective treatment of external and symptomatic internal rectal prolapse. It has better cosmetic and functional outcome as advantages of minimal access and comparable recurrence rate.

Optimizing Treatment for Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse is associated with debilitating symptoms and leads to both functional impairment and anatomic distortion. Symptoms include rectal bulge, mucous drainage, bleeding, incontinence, constipation, tenesmus, as well as discomfort, pressure, and pain. The only cure is surgical. The optimal surgical repair is not yet defined though laparoscopic rectopexy with mesh is emerging as a more durable approach. The chosen approach should be individually tailored, taking into account factors such as presence of pelvic floor defects and coexistence of vaginal prolapse, severe constipation, surgical fitness, and whether the patient has had a previous prolapse procedure. Consideration of a multidisciplinary approach is critical in patients with concomitant vaginal prolapse. Surgeons must weigh their familiarity with each approach and should have in their armamentarium both perineal and abdominal approaches. Previous barriers to abdominal procedures, such as age and comorbidities, are waning as minimally invasive approaches have gained acceptance. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is one such approach offering relatively low morbidity, low recurrence rates, and good functional improvement. However, proficiency with this procedure may require advanced training. Robotic rectopexy is another burgeoning approach which facilitates suturing in the pelvis. Successful rectal prolapse surgeries improve function and have low recurrence rates, though it is important to note that correcting the prolapse does not assure functional improvement.

Single port laparoscopic mesh rectopexy

Introduction

Traditionally, laparoscopic mesh rectopexy is performed with four ports, in an attempt to improve cosmetic results. Following laparoscopic mesh rectopexy there is a new operative technique called single-port laparoscopic mesh rectopexy.

Aim

To evaluate the single-port laparoscopic mesh rectopexy technique in control of rectal prolapse and the cosmesis and body image issues of this technique.

Material and methods

The study was conducted in El Fayoum University Hospital between July 2013 and November 2014 in elective surgery for symptomatic rectal prolapse with single-port laparoscopic mesh rectopexy on 10 patients.

Results

The study included 10 patients: 3 (30%) males and 7 (70%) females. Their ages ranged between 19 years and 60 years (mean: 40.3 ±6 years), and they all underwent laparoscopic mesh rectopexy. There were no conversions to open technique, nor injuries to the rectum or bowel, and there were no mortalities. Mean operative time was 120 min (range: 90–150 min), and mean hospital stay was 2 days (range: 1–3 days). Preoperatively, incontinence was seen in 5 (50%) patients and constipation in 4 (40%). Postoperatively, improvement in these symptoms was seen in 3 (60%) patients for incontinence and in 3 (75%) for constipation. Follow-up was done for 6 months and no recurrence was found with better cosmetic appearance for all patients.

Conclusions

Single-port laparoscopic mesh rectopexy is a safe procedure with good results as regards operative time, improvement in bowel function, morbidity, cost, and recurrence, and with better cosmetic appearance.

[Complications after rectal prolapse surgery]

Major complications only rarely occur after rectal prolapse surgery. Generally, the spectrum of possible complications should always be considered depending on the selected surgical procedure. Minor complications in all techniques have been described in up to 36 %. The commonest complication is bleeding with 2-5 %, urinary tract infections and wound infections. Finally, the risk of recurrence must be considered, which shows substantial differences (4-40 %); therefore, no operation technique can be given preference based solely on the risk of recurrence. Therapy decisions are always more individualized and must take the personal environment of the patient as well as the experience of the surgeon into consideration.

Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults

BACKGROUND

Complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse is a lifestyle-altering disability that commonly affects older people. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying pelvic floor defects in full-thickness rectal prolapse reflects the lack of consensus regarding the best operation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different surgical repairs for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register up to 3 February 2015; it contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as well as trials identified through handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We also searched EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1947 to February 2015) and PubMed (January 1950 to December 2014), and we specifically handsearched theBritish Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to June 2014), Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to June 2014) and Colorectal Diseases (January 2000 to June 2014), as well as the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meetings (January 2000 to December 2014). Finally, we handsearched reference lists of all relevant articles to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgery for managing full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The four primary outcome measures were the number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse, number of patients with faecal incontinence and number of patients with constipation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1007 participants in this third review update. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery, and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy. One new trial compared rectopexy versus rectal mobilisation only (no rectopexy), performed with either open or laparoscopic surgery. One new trial compared different techniques used in perineal surgery, and another included three comparisons: abdominal versus perineal surgery, resection versus no resection rectopexy in abdominal surgery and different techniques used in perineal surgery.The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. Given these caveats, there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches are most effective. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more postoperative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation. Recurrence of full-thickness prolapse was greater for mobilisation of the rectum only compared with rectopexy. There were no differences in quality of life for patients who underwent the different kinds of prolapse surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The lack of high quality evidence on different techniques, together with the small sample size of included trials and their methodological weaknesses, severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Longer follow-up with current studies and larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence base and to define the optimum surgical treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

New-onset rectoanal intussusception may not result in symptomatic improvement after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to assess defecatory function in patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for external rectal prolapse (ERP).

METHODS

Thirty-one patients who underwent evacuation proctography 6 months postoperatively were assessed. Preoperative proctography had been performed in 21 patients of these patients. Defecatory function was evaluated using the constipation scoring system (CSS) and fecal incontinence severity index (FISI).

RESULTS

The findings of postoperative proctography revealed no full-thickness ERP in any patient, although in 10 patients the ERP was replaced by rectoanal intussusception (RAI). Of the 31 patients, 30 presented with fecal incontinence preoperatively. Ten of 30 had new-onset RAI. Six months postoperatively, a reduction of at least 50 % in the FISI score of the patients with new-onset RAI tended to be significantly smaller than in the patients without RAI (6/10 vs. 18/20, p = 0.141). Seventeen patients presented with obstructed defecation preoperatively. Seven of them had new-onset RAI. Six months postoperatively, a reduction of at least 50 % in their CSS score in the patients with new-onset RAI was significantly smaller than in patients without RAI (0/7 vs. 8/10, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Evacuation proctography showed new-onset RAI in some patients with ERP who underwent LVR, which was associated with a lack of symptomatic improvement.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for the treatment of obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse: a critical appraisal of the first 100 cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is gaining wider acceptance as the preferred procedure to correct internal as well as external rectal prolapse associated with obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence. Very few reports exist on the use of biologic mesh for LVR. The aim of our study was to report the complication and recurrence rate of our first 100 cases of LVR for symptomatic internal rectal prolapse and/or rectocele using a porcine dermal collagen mesh.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data on LVR for internal rectal prolapse were analysed. Surgical complications and functional results in terms of faecal incontinence (measured with the Faecal Incontinence Severity Index = FISI) and constipation (measured with the Wexner Constipation Score = WCS) at 3, 6 and 12 months were analysed. It was considered an improvement if FISI or WCS scores were reduced by at least 25 % and a cure if the FISI score decreased to <10 and the WCS decreased to <5.

RESULTS

Between April 2009 and April 2013, 100 consecutive female patients (mean age 63 years, range 24-88 years) underwent LVR. All patients had internal rectal prolapse (grade III [n = 25] and grade IV [n = 75] according to the Oxford classification) and rectocele. Mean operative time was 85 ± 40 min. Conversion rate to open technique was 1 %. There was no post-operative mortality. Overall 16 patients (16 %) experienced 18 complications, including rectal perforation (n = 1), small bowel obstruction (n = 2), urinary tract infection (n = 8), subcutaneous emphysema (n = 3), wound haematoma (n = 2), long lasting sacral pain (n = 1) and incisional hernia (1). Median post-operative length of stay was 2 days. Ninety-eight out of 100 patients completed follow-up. At the end of follow-up, the mean FISI score improved from 8.4 (±4.0 standard deviation (SD) p = 0.003) to 3.3 ± 2.3 SD (p = 0.04). Incontinence improved in 37 out of 43 patients (86 %), and 31 patients (72 %) were cured. Similarly, the mean WCS score improved from 18.4 ± 11.6 SD to 5.4 ± 4.1 SD (p = 0.04). Constipation improved in 82 out of 89 patients (92 %), and 70 patients (79 %) were cured. No worsening of continence status, constipation or sexual function was observed. Fourteen patients (14 %) experienced persistence or recurrence of prolapse.

CONCLUSIONS

LVR using biologic mesh is a safe and effective procedure for improving symptoms of obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse associated with rectocele.

Surgical treatments for rectal prolapse: how does a perineal approach compare in the laparoscopic era?

BACKGROUND

Patients with rectal prolapse often have significant comorbidities that lead surgeons to select a perineal resection for treatment despite a reported higher recurrence rate over abdominal approaches. There is a lack of data to support this practice in the laparoscopic era. The objective of this study was to evaluate if risk-adjusted morbidity of perineal surgery for rectal prolapse is actually lower than laparoscopic surgery.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database as performed for patients undergoing surgical treatment of rectal prolapse between 2005 and 2011. Outcomes were analyzed according to procedure-type: laparoscopic rectopexy (LR), laparoscopic resection/rectopexy (LRR), open rectopexy (OR), open resection/rectopexy (ORR), and perineal resection (PR). A multivariate logistic regression was used to compare risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality between each procedure. Main outcome measures were 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 3,254 cases sampled, a laparoscopic approach was used in 22 %, an open abdominal approach in 30 %, and PR in 48 %. Patients undergoing PR were older (76) and had a higher ASA (3) compared to laparoscopic (58, 2) and open abdominal procedures (58, 2). Risk-adjusted mortality could not be assessed due to a low overall incidence of mortality (0.01 %). Overall morbidity was 9.3 %. ORR was associated with a higher risk-adjusted morbidity compared to PR (OR: 1.89 CI (1.19-2.99), p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted morbidity found between LR and LRR compared to PR (OR 0.44 CI (0.19-1.03), p = 0.18; OR 1.55 CI (0.86-2.77), p = 0.18). Laparoscopic cases averaged 27 min longer than open cases (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic rectal prolapse surgery has comparable morbidity and mortality to perineal surgery. A randomized trial is indicated to validate these findings and to assess recurrence rates and functional outcomes.

Rectal prolapse: an overview of clinical features, diagnosis, and patient-specific management strategies

Rectal prolapse can present in a variety of forms and is associated with a range of symptoms including pain, incomplete evacuation, bloody and/or mucous rectal discharge, and fecal incontinence or constipation. Complete external rectal prolapse is characterized by a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus, which may be intermittent or may be incarcerated and poses a risk of strangulation. There are multiple surgical options to treat rectal prolapse, and thus care should be taken to understand each patient's symptoms, bowel habits, anatomy, and pre-operative expectations. Preoperative workup includes physical exam, colonoscopy, anoscopy, and, in some patients, anal manometry and defecography. With this information, a tailored surgical approach (abdominal versus perineal, minimally invasive versus open) and technique (posterior versus ventral rectopexy +/- sigmoidectomy, for example) can then be chosen. We propose an algorithm based on available outcomes data in the literature, an understanding of anorectal physiology, and expert opinion that can serve as a guide to determining the rectal prolapse operation that will achieve the best possible postoperative outcomes for individual patients.

A simple and safe procedure to repair rectal prolapse perineally using stapling devices

Rectal prolapses are not life-threatening, however the bleeding and fecal incontinence associated with them significantly erode quality of life and can cause concern among patients' caregivers in nursing homes. Many procedures have been reported that repair rectal prolapses, and the procedure used depends on the severity of the prolapse; however, the treatments are yet to be established. Here we report a simple and safe procedure to repair rectal prolapse perineally using stapling devices. We performed this procedure on 5 patients within a short time. All patients were followed up for over 24 months and none had any recurrences of their rectal prolapses. No complications occurred during the operations and postoperative periods. Most patients who have prolapses are elderly and fragile, so the treatment must be easy, safe, and rapid. While rectal prolapse is not life-threatening, the goal of treatment is to alleviate its symptoms. The procedure we describe is consistent with this concept. We suggest that this procedure, which uses surgical stapling devices, might be a better option for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse. We will continue to surgically correct complete rectal prolapses and investigate the long-term outcomes of the procedure.

A single centre comparative study of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus suture rectopexy

AIM:

The aim of our study is to compare the results of laparoscopic mesh vs. suture rectopexy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

In this retrospective study, 70 patients including both male and female of age ranging between 20 years and 65 years (mean 42.5 yrs) were subjected to laparoscopic rectopexy during the period between March 2007 and June 2012, of which 38 patients underwent laparoscopic mesh rectopexy and 32 patients laparoscopic suture rectopexy. These patients were followed up for a mean period of 12 months assessing first bowel movement, hospital stay, duration of surgery, faecal incontinence, constipation, recurrence and morbidity.

RESULTS:

Duration of surgery was 100.8 ± 12.4 minutes in laparoscopic suture rectopexy and 120 ± 10.8 min in laparoscopic mesh rectopexy. Postoperatively, the mean time for the first bowel movement was 38 hrs and 40 hrs, respectively, for suture and mesh rectopexy. Mean hospital stay was five (range: 4-7) days. There was no significant postoperative complication except for one port site infection in mesh rectopexy group. Patients who had varying degree of incontinence preoperatively showed improvement after surgery. Eleven out of 18 (61.1%) patients who underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy as compared to nine of 19 (47.3%) patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh rectopexy improved as regards constipation after surgery.

CONCLUSION:

There were no significant difference in both groups who underwent surgery except for patients undergoing suture rectopexy had better symptomatic improvement of continence and constipation. Also, cost of mesh used in laparoscopic mesh rectopexy is absent in lap suture rectopexy group. To conclude that laparoscopic suture rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure and have comparable results as regards operative time, morbidity, bowel function, cost and recurrence or even slightly better results than mesh rectopexy.

Modified laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

We present a modified laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy procedure using biological mesh and bilateral anterior mesh fixation. The rectopexy is anterior with a minimal posterior mobilization. The rectum is symmetrically suspended to the sacral promontory through a mesorectal window.

[Pelvic floor disorders from the surgeon's viewpoint]

Pelvic floor disorders present very differently with regard to symptoms and manifestation. Both diagnostic and treatment options require specific experience and an interdisciplinary approach. Diagnostic work-up is primarily based on medical history, physical examination and procto-rectoscopy. Furthermore, endosonography and perineal sonography have also gained importance. In almost all cases following these basic examinations conservative therapy options should be considered. As the interdisciplinary concept is very important, for careful diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders it became crucial to find an adequate form of treatment. Every decision for surgical therapy should not only focus on the results of previous examinations but should also consider the individual situation of each patient. In pelvic floor disorders a large variety of symptoms are confronted with a vast number of different and often highly specific procedures. The decisions on who to treat and how to treat are not only based on individual patient requests and desires but also on the experience and preference of the surgeon.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective long-term evaluation of functional results and quality of life

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse combines the advantages of a minimally invasive approach with the low recurrence rate observed after abdominal procedures. To date, only a few long-term functional studies and no quality of life assessment are available. The aim of this study was to assess long-term functional outcomes and quality of life after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and December 2008, patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse and/or rectocele were prospectively included. Fecal incontinence and constipation were scored (Wexner score and Rome II criteria). Quality of life was assessed using the gastrointestinal quality of life form (GIQLI).

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included and 30 (91 %) completed all the questionnaires. There was no morbidity or mortality. The mean length of hospital stay was 5 ± 1 days (range 3-7 days). After a mean follow-up of 42 ± 7 months (range 32-52 months), recurrence of rectocele was observed in two patients (6 %). At the end of follow-up, constipation was improved in 13/18 patients (72 %) and two patients (7 %) presented de novo constipation. The patients' Wexner score improved between preoperative status and end of follow-up (12 ± 7 vs. 4 ± 3, p = 0.002). Compared to the preoperative score, quality of life significantly improved over time: 77 ± 21 preoperatively versus 107 ± 17 at 1 year versus 109 ± 18 at the end of follow-up (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study showed that laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was associated with excellent postoperative outcomes and a low long-term recurrence rate. Long-term functional results were excellent in terms of continence, with significant improvement of quality of life and without worsening constipation.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse using biological mesh: postoperative and short-term functional results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is a novel procedure to correct internal and external rectal prolapse. Several authors have shown that this approach is safe and improves obstructive defaecation symptoms and faecal incontinence, without inducing new-onset constipation, possible after posterior rectopexy. Over the last decade, as for other procedures, biological meshes are used to correct pelvic floor disorders. Literature data are scant. In this study, we present our experience with this procedure using biological mesh.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data on laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse were analysed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation with defaecating proctography and/or pelvic dynamic MRI, full colonoscopy, anal physiology studies and endo-anal ultrasound. End-points were to evaluate surgical complications and functional results of this technique such as changes in bowel function (Wexner Constipation Score and Faecal Incontinence Severity Index) at 3 and 6 months. Analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U test for unpaired data and Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data (two-sided p test).

RESULTS

Thirty-four consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (median age 59, range 25-78 years, mean follow-up was 12 months). Twenty-eight patients (82%) had a constipation score ≥ 5, while 14 (41%) a FISI score ≥ 10. Nine patients (26%) had mixed obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence. One patient required conversion to open (3%). Median length of stay was 2 days. Overall complication rate was 23.5%. Preoperative constipation (median Wexner score 15) and faecal incontinence (median FISI score 12) improved significantly at 3 months (Wexner 5, FISI 5, both p < 0.001). Two patients experienced prolapse persistence or recurrence. No patients had function worsening or complained of sexual dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy using biological mesh for internal rectal prolapse is safe and effective in ameliorating symptoms of obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence.

Rectal prolapse: review according to the personal experience

The aim of treatment of rectal prolapse is to control the prolapse, restore continence, and prevent constipation or impaired evacuation. Faced with a multitude of options, the choice of an optimal treatment is difficult. It is best tailored to patient and surgeon. Numerous procedures have been described and are generally categorized into perineal or abdominal approaches. In general, an abdominal procedure has associated with lower recurrence and better functional outcome than perineal procedures. The widespread success of laparoscopic surgery has led to the development of laparoscopic procedures in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse. In Korea, there has been a trend toward offering perineal procedures because of the high incidence of rectal prolapse in young males and its being a lesser procedure. Delorme-Thiersch procedure has appeal as a lesser procedure for patients of any age or risk category, especially for elderly low-risk patients, patients with constipation or evacuation difficulties, young males, and patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids or mucosal prolapse. Laparoscopic suture rectopexy is recommended for either low-risk female patients or patients who are concerned with postoperative aggravation of their incontinence.

Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is defined as a protrusion of the rectum beyond the anus. Although rectal prolapse was recognized as early as 1500 BC, the optimal surgical procedure is still debated. The varied operative procedures available for treating rectal prolapsed can be confusing. The aim of treatment is to control the prolapse, restore continence, and prevent constipation or impaired evacuation. In elderly and high-risk patients, perineal approaches, such as Delorme's operation and Altemeier's operation, have been preferred, although the incidence of recurrence and the rate of persistent incontinence seem to be high when compared with transabdominal procedures. Abdominal operations involve dissection and fixation of the rectum and may include a rectosigmoid resection. From the late twentieth century, the laparoscopic procedure has been applied to the treatment of rectal prolapse. Current laparoscopic surgical techniques include suture rectopexy, stapled rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy with artificial material, and resection of the sigmoid colon with colorectal anastomosis with or without rectopexy. The choice of surgery depends on the status of the patient and the surgeon's preference.

Abdominal approaches for rectal prolapse

The management of full-thickness rectal prolapse involves surgical intervention in the majority of cases. Many procedures have been described employing both perineal and abdominal approaches. Abdominal procedures result in more durable repair of the prolapse; however, the procedures require general anesthesia and are reserved for younger healthier patients. Laparoscopy has been utilized in the treatment of rectal prolapse since its introduction for colorectal procedures; recent studies have found equivalent long-term results and short-term outcomes.

Rectal prolapse

Despite the innovation of more than 100 surgical procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse, no one procedure is best and applicable to all patients. Traditionally, procedures have been divided into abdominal and perineal approaches. The application of the laparoscopic approach to colon and rectal disease has allowed an additional less invasive method of therapy to treat rectal prolapse successfully. In comparison with conventional approaches, laparoscopy has achieved similar functional results and recurrence rates while reducing postoperative pain and hospital length of stay.

Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of ventral rectopexy (VR) surgery for treatment of rectal prolapse (RP) and rectal intussusception (RI) in adults. Method MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and other relevant databases were searched to identify studies. Randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized studies with more than 10 patients receiving ventral mesh rectopexy surgery were considered for the review.

RESULTS

Twelve nonrandomized case series studies with 728 patients in total are included in the review. Seven studies used the Orr-Loygue procedure (VR with posterior rectal mobilization to the pelvic floor) and five studies used VR without posterior rectal mobilization. Overall weighted mean percentage decrease in faecal incontinence (FI) rate was 45%. The weighted mean percentage decrease in constipation rate was 24%. Weighted mean recurrence rate was 3.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

There are limitations in published literature on VR. The available data indicate that VR has low recurrence and improves FI in patients suffering from these conditions. There is a greater reduction in postoperative constipation if VR is used without posterior rectal mobilization.

[Rectal prolapse. Abdominal or local approach]

Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse aims to correct morphology and restore function. Many techniques are available, but none can be considered a gold standard. Abdominal approaches differ with regard to abdominal access, extent of rectal mobilisation, technique of rectal pexy, and concomitant sigmoid resection. Local (perineal/transanal) procedures plicate or resect the rectum. The choice of operative approach is based on the patient's condition and expected outcome of the procedure, e.g. recurrence rate, morbidity, and function. Abdominal operations are favored in fit patients, while local procedures are considered for the elderly and frail. This review compares differences in the most common techniques, focussing on recurrence, morbidity, and functional outcome.

Recurrence and quality of life following perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Surgical outcome and quality of life (QOL) following perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse remain poorly documented.

METHODS

From 1994 to 2004, patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse were treated exclusively with perineal proctectomy independent of age or comorbidities. Subjective patient assessments and recurrences were determined retrospectively from hospital and clinic records. Consenting patients completed the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI).

RESULTS

Perineal proctectomy was performed in 103 consecutive patients with a median age of 75 years (range 30-94). Most patients underwent concurrent levatorplasty (anterior 85.8%, posterior 67.9%). Durable results were obtained in all patients; the recurrence rate was 8.5% over a mean follow-up of 36 months. Preoperatively, 75.5% of patients reported fecal incontinence, and 32.1% had obstructed defecation. Incontinence significantly improved post-proctectomy (41.5%, p < 0.001), as did constipation (10.4%, p < 0.001). GIQLI respondents reported satisfaction following proctectomy with 63% scoring within one standard deviation of healthy controls. Patients with recurrent prolapse reported a lower QOL. Risk factors for recurrence included duration of prolapse, need for posterior levatorplasty, and prior anorectal surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Perineal proctectomy provides significant relief from fecal incontinence and obstructive symptoms caused by rectal prolapse, with an acceptable recurrence rate and low morbidity.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse

This article reviews the pathogenesis, clinical presentation and surgical management of rectal prolapse. Full-thickness prolapse of the rectum causes significant discomfort because of the sensation of the prolapse itself, the mucus that it secretes, and because it tends to stretch the anal sphincters and cause incontinence. Treatment of rectal prolapse is primarily surgical. Perineal surgical repairs are well tolerated, but are generally associated with higher recurrence rates. Abdominal repairs involve fixing the rectum to the sacrum by using either mesh or sutures, and tend to have the lowest recurrence rates. If significant preoperative constipation is present, a sigmoid resection can be performed at the time of rectopexy. For many patients, diarrhea and incontinence improve after surgery. Laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse has similar morbidity and recurrence rates to open surgery, with attendant benefits of reduced length of hospital stay, postoperative pain and wound complications.

Rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Rectal prolapse, or procidentia, is defined as a protrusion of the rectum beyond the anus. It commonly occurs at the extremes of age. Rectal prolapse frequently coexists with other pelvic floor disorders, and patients have symptoms associated with combined rectal and genital prolapse. Few patients, a lack of randomized trials and difficulties in the interpretation of studies of anorectal physiology have made the understanding of this disorder difficult.

METHODS OF TREATMENT

Surgical management is aimed at restoring physiology by correcting the prolapse and improving continence and constipation, whereas in patients with concurrent genital and rectal prolapse, an interdisciplinary surgical approach is required. Operation should be reserved for those patients in whom medical treatment has failed, and it may be expected to relieve symptoms. Numerous surgical procedures have been suggested to treat rectal prolapse. They are generally classified as abdominal or perineal according to the route of access. However, the controversy as to which operation is appropriate cannot be answered definitively, as the extent of a standardized diagnostic assessment and the types of surgical procedures have not been identified in published series.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This review encompasses rectal prolapse, including aetiology, symptoms and treatment. The English-language literature about rectal prolapse was identified using Medline, and additional cited works not detected in the initial search were obtained. Articles reporting on prospective and retrospective comparisons and case reports were included.

[Nononcologic abdominal surgery in the elderly]

Due to rising life expectancy of the population, the proportion of elderly patients requiring surgery is rising as well. Present aspects of selected, typical, nononcologic diseases of elderly people are discussed. The key to success in their treatment is not to consider primarily the patient's calendrical age but to assess the individual profile of risk factors on the basis of comorbidities. The kind, extent, and timing of an operation has to be based on this assessment. For the treatment of acute diseases (e.g., complicated ulcera, cholecystitis, appendicitis, mesenteric ischemia, and diverticulitis), a rapid and efficacious diagnostic algorithm is essential that takes into account the reduced functional reserve of old people. Constructive interdisciplinary cooperation and minimally invasive techniques play dominant roles in both diagnosis and therapy. Given these prerequisites, there is no reason to withhold surgical intervention from elderly patients.

Rectal prolapse: which surgical option is appropriate?

Numerous surgical procedures have been suggested to treat rectal prolapse. In elderly and high-risk patients, perineal approaches such as Delorme's procedure and perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier's procedure) have been preferred, although the incidence of recurrence and the rate of persistent incontinence seem to be high when compared with transabdominal procedures. Functional results of transabdominal procedures, including mesh or suture rectopexy and resection-rectopexy, are thought to be associated with low recurrence rates and improved continence. Transabdominal procedures, however, usually imply rectal mobilization and fixation, colonic resection, or both, and some concern is voiced that morbidity, in terms of infection or leakage, and mortality could be increased. If we focus on surgical outcome, our own experience of laparoscopic resection-rectopexy for rectal prolapse shows that the laparoscopic approach is safe and effective, and functional results with respect to recurrence are favorable. However, the controversy "which operation is appropriate?" cannot be answered definitely, as a clear definition of rectal prolapse, the extent of a standardized diagnostic assessment, and the type of surgical procedure have not been identified in published series. Randomized trials are needed to improve the evidence with which the optimal surgical treatment of rectal prolapse can be defined.

Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a common symptom which causes significant distress and reduction in quality of life. Available treatment options for faecal incontinence include conservative treatments (biofeedback, pelvic floor muscle training, dietary manipulation or drug therapy) or surgical treatments (e.g. sphincter repair, post anal repair, neosphincter). Drug treatment is often given either alone or in combination with other treatment modalities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of drug therapy for the treatment of faecal incontinence. In particular, to assess the effects of individual drugs relative to placebo or other drugs, and to compare drug therapy with other treatment modalities.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register (January 2003) and the reference lists of relevant articles. Date of the most recent search: January 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, reviewers selected studies from the literature, assessed the methodological quality of each trial, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials were identified for inclusion in this review. Nine trials were of cross-over design. Seven trials included only people with faecal incontinence related to liquid stool (either chronic diarrhoea or following ileoanal pouch surgery). Three trials (total 58 participants) compared topical phenylephrine gel with placebo. Two trials (56 participants) compared loperamide with placebo. One trial (11 participants) compared loperamide oxide with placebo. One trial (15 participants) compared diphenoxylate plus atropine with placebo. One trial (17 participants) compared sodium valproate with placebo. One trial (30 participants) compared loperamide with codeine with diphenoxylate plus atropine. Two further trials (total 265 participants) assessed the use of lactulose in elderly people.No studies comparing drugs with other treatment modalities were identified. There was limited evidence that antidiarrhoeal drugs and drugs which enhance anal sphincter tone may reduce faecal incontinence in patients with liquid stools. However, the trials were small and of short duration.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The small number of trials identified for this review assessed several different drugs in a variety of patient populations. The focus of most of the included trials was on the treatment of diarrhoea, rather than faecal incontinence. There is little evidence to guide clinicians in the selection of drug therapies for faecal incontinence. Larger, well-designed controlled trials, which include clinically important outcome measures, are required.

The Altemeier repair: outpatient treatment of rectal prolapse

PURPOSE

Rectal prolapse typically occurs in elderly patients, who are often poor surgical candidates because of the presence of multiple comorbidities. Abdominal approaches to procidentia have low recurrence rates but are associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier repair) is a safe and effective approach to the treatment of rectal prolapse and can be done as an outpatient procedure. In this article, the results of a series of 63 consecutive Altemeier repairs are presented.

METHODS

Between February 1993 and December 1999, 63 patients (61 females) underwent Altemeier repair of rectal prolapse. The mean patient age was 79 years. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and analyzed for all patients.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 20.8 months. Seventy percent of patients were given a regional or local anesthetic. The average resected specimen length was 11.6 cm, and 83 percent of anastomoses were stapled. Sixty-two percent of patients were discharged home on the day of surgery, and 80 percent were home within 24 hours. Complications occurred in 10 percent of patients, but there was no perioperative mortality. There was a 6.4 percent recurrence rate, and all recurrences were successfully treated with repeat Altemeier repair. All 63 patients had complete objective resolution of prolapse, and 87 percent had subjective improvement after repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Altemeier repair of rectal prolapse is safe, produces minimal discomfort, and does not require a general anesthetic. It is ideally suited to be done on an outpatient basis, as was done in the majority of patients in our series. The recurrence rate is slightly higher than with abdominal resections, but morbidity and cost are lower, and repeat perineal resections are easily and safely performed.