Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults

Validity of task-specific metrics for assessment in perineal proctectomy

BACKGROUND

Perineal proctectomy is a complex procedure that requires advanced skills. Currently, there are no simulators for training in this procedure. As part of our objective of developing a virtual reality simulator, our goal was to develop and validate task-specific metrics for the assessment of performance for this procedure. We conducted a three-phase study to establish task-specific metrics, obtain expert consensus on the appropriateness of the developed metrics, and establish the discriminant validity of the developed metrics.

METHODS

In phase I, we utilized hierarchical task analysis to formulate the metrics. In phase II, a survey involving expert colorectal surgeons determined the significance of the developed metrics. Phase III was aimed at establishing the discriminant validity for novices (PGY1-3) and experts (PGY4-5 and faculty). They performed a perineal proctectomy on a rectal prolapse model. Video recordings were independently assessed by two raters using global ratings and task-specific metrics for the procedure. Total scores for both metrics were computed and analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. A Mann-Whitney U test with Benjamini-Hochberg correction was used to evaluate between-group differences. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was computed to assess the correlation between global and task-specific scores.

RESULTS

In phase II, a total of 23 colorectal surgeons were recruited and consensus was obtained on all the task-specific metrics. In phase III, participants (n = 22) included novices (n = 15) and experts (n = 7). There was a strong positive correlation between the global and task-specific scores (rs = 0.86; P < 0.001). Significant between-group differences were detected for both global (χ2 = 15.38; P < 0.001; df = 2) and task-specific (χ2 = 11.38; P = 0.003; df = 2) scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a biotissue rectal prolapse model, this study documented high IRR and significant discriminant validity evidence in support of video-based assessment using task-specific metrics.

Resolution of symptoms of rectal prolapse after repair of vaginal prolapse: A report of two cases

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a very common problem that can affect any aspect of the pelvic floor. Often, vaginal and rectal prolapse occur simultaneously. Prior case reports have suggested resolution of symptoms of rectal prolapse in those with concomitant rectal and vaginal prolapse; however, the overall body of evidence is limited. We present the cases of two patients who had complete resolution of their symptoms of rectal prolapse after repair of a concomitant vaginal prolapse. Both patients underwent a traditional rectocele repair and perineoplasty, and subsequently reported complete resolution of their symptoms of rectal prolapse, which persisted at their six-month post-operative visits. The second patient ultimately canceled a previously scheduled rectopexy with colorectal surgery. Perhaps a rectocele repair with perineoplasty is limiting rectal mobility, and therefore eliminating its ability to prolapse or intussuscept and cause bothersome symptoms. We suggest that those with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse desiring corrective surgery first undergo a less invasive vaginal repair. Post-operative re-evaluation of the symptoms rectal prolapse might then demonstrate that a more invasive rectal prolapse repair, which may involve a colon resection and prolonged hospital stay, was not in fact needed. Further prospective and randomized study is needed to determine the long-term outcomes of concomitant rectal and vaginal prolapse in those who first undergo a vaginal repair.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the oldest old is safe: the race is run

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is considered to be the gold standard for managing rectal prolapse. Nevertheless, concerns have been expressed about the use of this procedure in elderly patients. The aim of the current study was to examine the perioperative safety of primary LVMR operations in the oldest old in comparison to younger individuals and to assess our hospital policy of offering LVMR to all patients, regardless of age and morbidity.

METHODS

A retrospective study analysed demographic information, operation notes, meshes utilised, operation times, lengths of hospital stay (LOS) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores of patients who underwent LVMR at Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital between 2012 and 2023.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven female patients underwent LVMR. Nineteen patients were 80 years of age or older (OLD group); the remaining 65 patients were under the age of 80 (YOUNG group). The difference between the groups in terms of age was statistically significant. ASA scores were not significantly different. No mortality was observed. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of LOS, operation time or morbidity. Moreover, the postoperative morbidity profile was excellent in both groups.

CONCLUSION

LVMR seems to be a safe operation for the "oldest old" patients with comorbidity, despite a single-centre, retrospective trial with limited follow-up. The present study suggests abandoning the dogma that "frail patients with rectal prolapse are not suitable for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy."

Increased cost burden associated with robot-assisted rectopexy: do patient outcomes justify increased expenditure?

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgical techniques have flourished over the years, with refinement in instrumentation and optics allowing for adaptation and increasing utilization across surgical fields. Transabdominal rectopexy with mesh for rectal prolapse may stand to benefit significantly from the use of a robotic platform. However, increased operative times and immediate associated costs of robotic surgery may provide a counterargument to widespread adoption.

METHODS

To determine which approach to the treatment of rectal prolapse, laparoscopic or robotic, is more cost effective and provides better outcomes with fewer complications, a retrospective review was performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from May 2013 to December 2020. Twenty-two patients underwent transabdominal mesh rectopexy through a robot-assisted DaVinci platform (Intuitive Sunnyvale, CA), and thirty through a laparoscopic platform. Main outcome measures included operative, hospital, and total cost as defined by total charges billed. Secondary outcomes included rate of recurrence, intra-operative complications, median operative time, post-operative complications, average hospital length of stay, inpatient pain medication usage, and post-operative functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Cost analysis for robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectopexy demonstrated operating room costs of $46,118 ± $9329 for the robotic group, versus $33,090 ± $15,395 (p = 0.002) for the laparoscopic group. Inpatient hospital costs were $60,723 ± $20,170 vs. $40,798 ± $14,325 (p = 0.001), and total costs were $106,841 ± $25,513 vs. $73,888 ± $28,129 (p ≤ 0.001). When secondary outcomes were compared for the robotic versus laparoscopic groups, there were no differences in any of the aforementioned outcome variables except for operative time, which was 79 min longer in the robotic group (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted mesh rectopexy demonstrated no clinical benefit over traditional laparoscopic mesh rectopexy, with significantly higher operative and hospital costs. A reduction in the acquisition and maintenance costs for robotic surgery is needed before large-scale adoption and implementation of the robotic platform for this procedure.

Predictive factors for functional failure of ventral mesh rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation

Background

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is widely accepted for the treatment of rectal prolapse or obstructed defecation. However, despite good anatomical results, the improvement of functional symptoms (constipation or incontinence) cannot always be obtained and in some cases these symptoms may even worsen. The aim of the present study was to identify possible predictors of functional failure after VMR.

Methods

Data of all consecutive patients who had VMR for the treatment of rectal prolapse and/or obstructed defecation between January 2017 and December 2020 in three different pelvic floor surgical centres in Italy were analysed to identify possible predictors of functional failure, intended as persistence, worsening or new onset of constipation or faecal incontinence. Symptom severity was assessed pre- and postoperatively with the Wexner Constipation score and Obstructed Defecation Syndrome score. Quality of life was assessed, also before and after treatment, with the Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life questionnaire, the Pelvic Floor Disability Index and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire. Faecal incontinence was evaluated with the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score. The functional outcomes before and after surgery were compared.

Results

Sixty-one patients were included (M:F ratio 3:60, median age 64 years [range 33–88 years]). Forty-two patients (68.9%) had obstructed defecation syndrome, 12(19.7%) had faecal incontinence and 7 patients (11.5%) had both. A statistically significant reduction between pre- and postoperative Obstructed Defecation Syndrome and Wexner scores was reported (p < 0.0001 in both cases). However, the postoperative presence of constipation occurred in 22 patients (36.1%) (this included 3 cases of new-onset constipation). The presence of redundant colon and the pre-existent constipation were associated with an increased risk of persistence of constipation postoperatively or new-onset constipation (p = 0.004 and p < 0.0001, respectively). The use of postoperative pelvic floor rehabilitation (p = 0.034) may reduce the risk of postoperative constipation.

Conclusions

VMR is a safe and effective intervention for correcting the anatomical defect of rectal prolapse. The degree of prolapse, the presence of dolichocolon and pre-existing constipation are risk factors for the persistence or new onset of postoperative constipation. Postoperative rehabilitation treatment may reduce this risk.

An experimental study on the pathophysiology of rectal prolapse

Objective: For decades, rectal prolapse has been hypothesized to be caused due to laxity or weakness of the pelvic floor muscles which is often sup- posed to be related to childbearing in females. However, 50% of females with rectal prolapse have been reported to be nulliparous and this hypothesis does not explain the incidence of rectal prolapse in males. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of rectal redundancy in rectal prolapse patho- physiology.

Material and Methods: Nineteen female Sprague Dawley rats (250-300 g) at 16 weeks of age were obtained from the animal center. Rats were divided into two groups as rectal mobilization (study) group (n= 9) and sham-operated control (n= 10) group. In the study group, soft dissection was applied and rectum were mobilized up from the pelvic floor to create a redundant or hypermobilized rectum.The primary outcome was the rate of rectal pro- lapse after rectal mobilization.

Results: As compared to the sham-operated control group, in which none of the rats had rectal prolapse throughout the post-surgical period, rectal prolapse was observed in four of the rats in the rectal mobilization group (0% vs. 44%; p= 0.006). Being unable to increase the length of the rectums of the rats, but using only mobilization to create the redundancy, and the lack of data regarding any adhesions after surgery are the main limitations of this study.

Conclusion: This study showed the role of rectal redundancy on the rectal prolapse pathophysiology.

Synchronous rectal prolapse and midgut volvulus presenting as complete small bowel gangrene

&lt;b&gt;Introduction:&lt;/b&gt; Adult midgut malrotation is very rare. The presentation in adults is mostly subtle; the diagnosis is often made on imaging. &lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;Case report:&lt;/b&gt; A 32-year-old man presented with a 3-day history of an irreducible painful mass protruding per rectum, followed by abdominal pain and constipation. The patient was febrile and toxic, with marked signs of peritonitis and complete fullthickness irreducible rectal prolapse. Abdominal radiographs showed multiple air-fluid levels. A diagnosis of irreducible rectal prolapse with intestinal obstruction was made. Laparotomy revealed complete small bowel gangrene, abnormal rotation of the small bowel 180° around the mesenteric root, hypermobile duodenojejunal flexure and ileocaecal junction and an abnormally mobile caecum lying in the central abdomen. Abnormal mobility of the sigmoid colon with a large mesocolon, and a large irreducible rectosigmoid intussusception, was also noted. Our patient is probably the first case in literature, which may prompt awareness of simultaneously-occurring disorders of fixation, and preventive steps.

Laparoscopic Sutureless Rectopexy Using a Fixation Device for Complete Rectal Prolapse

BACKGROUND

Complete rectal prolapse (CRP) commonly affects the daily life of older people and has no established operative treatment approach. We describe our simple method of laparoscopic, sutureless rectopexy, involving rectal mobilization (along with its peritoneum bilaterally) and fixation to the sacral promontory using a fixation device. We also present an analysis of short-term outcomes in patients treated using this procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 62 patients with CRP, who underwent a laparoscopic rectopexy via tack fixation, between 2004 and 2017. The peritoneum was widely attached near the site of peritoneal reflection, as in rectal cancer surgery. The hypogastric nerve was carefully detached from the front of the sacrum. Keeping the nerve intact, we lifted and mobilized the dissected rectum cranially towards the promontory, and the rectal peritoneum was affixed to the sacrum by applying 2 to 3 fixed tacks bilaterally, using a fixation device.

RESULTS

The median age of the study group was 80 (10 to 91) years. All procedures were successful without serious intraoperative complications; only 1 patient required conversion to open surgery. Median values for operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative period of hospitalization were 177 (125 to 441) minutes, 5 (0 to 275) mL, and 7 (3 to 17) days, respectively. Only 6 (9.7%) patients experienced recurrence during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic tacking rectopexy performed using a fixation device for repairing CRP is a simple, safe, and sutureless procedure with no severe complications or mortality.

Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy (LVMR) for Internal and External Rectal Prolapse: An Analysis of 122 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

Even though several reports have been published on the results of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in Asia, there are few mid-term or long-term results of LVMR. The authors aimed to evaluate the results of LVMR in patients with internal rectal prolapse (IRP) external rectal prolapse (ERP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From September 2013 to January 2019, 122 patients with IRP (n=48) or ERP (n=74) underwent LVMR. Constipation and fecal incontinence (FI) scores were evaluated using the Cleveland Clinic Florida score preoperatively and postoperatively. The questionnaire for the change of obstructed defecation or FI symptoms after surgery was also administered to grade the results as cured, improved, unchanged, or worsened for each survey.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 61.9 years. The mean operation time was 116.5 minutes, and the mean hospital stay was 5.1 days. The mean follow-up was 42.1 months. There were no mesh-related complications. Eight patients (10.7%) among the ERP group required additional surgery for recurrent full-thickness prolapse. Eleven patients (14.7%) who had mucosal prolapse within 2 cm underwent stapled hemorrhoidopexy after LVMR. In the postoperative 6-month period, the overall constipation score (7.12) significantly improved compared with the preoperative score (13.03) (P<0.001), whereas the FI score significantly improved after surgery (12.16 to 8.92; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

LVMR is a feasible and safe technique and favorable recurrence for ERP. Functional outcomes of obstructed defecation and FI were improved and the satisfaction of LVMR was high after the surgery. LVMR can be considered a recommended surgical option to treat ERP and IRP.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using the transanal vacuum test for complete rectal prolapse

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was performed in 84 patients with complete rectal prolapse from January 2016 to December 2019. In the initial 27 cases, three cases had recurrence, especially in cases of a long rectal prolapse measuring over 10 cm. In order to avoid recurrence, the transanal vacuum test was performed following the dissection of the rectovaginal septum towards the pelvic floor. The disappearance of rectal prolapse is confirmed by the intraoperative transanal vacuum test. When the posterior wall of the rectum showed the presence of prolapse according to the transanal vacuum test, then laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was converted to laparoscopic posterior rectopexy. In 94 cases in which laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was attempted, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was completed in 57 cases, while the procedure was converted to laparoscopic posterior rectopexy in 37 cases. The recurrence rate following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy decreased from 11.1% (3/27) to 1.7% (1/57) after beginning to use the transanal vacuum test. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using the transanal vacuum test is therefore considered to be a useful technique to reduce postoperative recurrence.

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.

Update on the Pathophysiology and Management of Anorectal Disorders

Anorectal disorders are common and present with overlapping symptoms. They include several disorders with both structural and functional dysfunction(s). Because symptoms alone are poor predictors of the underlying pathophysiology, a diagnosis should only be made after evaluating symptoms and physiologic and structural abnormalities. A detailed history, a thorough physical and digital rectal examination and a systematic evaluation with high resolution and/or high definition three-dimensional (3D) anorectal manometry, 3D anal ultrasonography, magnetic resonance defecography and neurophysiology tests are essential to correctly identify these conditions. These physiological and imaging tests play a key role in facilitating a precise diagnosis and in providing a better understanding of the pathophysiology and functional anatomy. In turn, this leads to better and more comprehensive management using medical, behavioral and surgical approaches. For example, patients presenting with difficult defecation may demonstrate dyssynergic defecation and will benefit from biofeedback therapy before considering surgical treatment of coexisting anomalies such as rectoceles or intussusception. Similarly, patients with significant rectal prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction or patients with complex enteroceles and pelvic organ prolapse may benefit from combined behavioral and surgical approaches, including an open, laparoscopic, transabdominal or transanal, and/or robotic-assisted surgery. Here, we provide an update on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of selected common anorectal disorders.

One decade of rectal prolapse surgery: a national study

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate the development of common procedures used as treatment for rectal prolapse over a decade and to determine if the choice of primary operation affects the reoperation rate.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of operative data from a National Data Registry, Landspatientregisteret (LPR), from the period of January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2014. All hospitalized surgical treatments are registered in LPR.

RESULTS

Sixteen hundred and twenty-five patients with rectal prolapse underwent 1834 operations. There were 94% women and mean age at surgery was 71.6 ± 18.1 years, with no difference over the 11 years. The types of operations performed differed (p < 0.0001), with an increase in overall number of operations and increasing use of laparoscopic procedures. There were 209 reoperations, of which 129 patients were primarily operated with a perineal procedure. The mean age at reoperation was 72.8 ± 17.3 years. The most frequently used reoperation was laparoscopic rectopexy. The overall reoperation rate was 16%: 10% for both open and laparoscopic rectopexy, and for perineal procedures 26% (p < 0.001). The overall 30-day mortality was 2.1% and there was no difference in mortality between the procedures (p = 0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall number of rectal prolapse operations was increasing. There was a clear trend towards extended use of laparoscopic rectopexy both as primary procedure and as reoperation. The highest reoperation rates were for the perineal procedures.

Surgical options for full-thickness rectal prolapse: current status and institutional choice

Full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) is generally believed to result from a sliding hernia through a pelvic fascial defect, or from rectal intussusception. The currently accepted cause is a pelvic floor disorder. Surgery is the only definitive treatment, although the ideal therapeutic option for FTRP has not been determined. Auffret reported the first FTRP surgery using a perineal approach in 1882, and rectopexy using conventional laparotomy was first described by Sudeck in 1922. Laparoscopy was first used by Bermann in 1992, and laparoscopic surgery is now used worldwide; robotic surgery was first described by Munz in 2004. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rates with FTRP surgery are an active research area and in this article we review previously documented surgeries and discuss the best approach for FTRP. We also introduce our institution's laparoscopic surgical technique for FTRP (laparoscopic rectopexy with posterior wrap and peritoneal closure). Therapeutic decisions must be individualized to each patient, while the surgeon's experience must also be considered.

Pediatric Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a common and self-limiting condition in infancy and early childhood. Most cases respond to conservative management. Patients younger than 4 years with an associated condition have a better prognosis. Patients older than 4 years require surgery more often than younger children. Multiple operative and procedural approaches to rectal prolapse exist with variable recurrence rates and without a clearly superior operation. These include sclerotherapy, Thiersch's anal cerclage, Ekehorn's rectopexy, laparoscopic suture rectopexy, and posterior sagittal rectopexy.

Should we offer ventral rectopexy to patients with recurrent external rectal prolapse?

BACKGROUND

For patients with rectal prolapse undergoing Ventral Rectopexy (VR), the impact of prior prolapse surgery on prolapse recurrence is not well described.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare recurrence rates after VR in patients undergoing primary and repeat rectal prolapse repairs.

DESIGN

This study is a prospective cohort study.

METHODS

IRB-approved prospective data registry of consecutive patients undergoing VR for full-thickness external rectal prolapse between 2009 and 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rectal prolapse recurrence was defined as either external prolapse through the anal sphincters or symptomatic rectal mucosa prolapse warranting additional surgery. Preoperative and postoperative morbidity and functional outcomes were analyzed. Actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 108 VRs were performed during the study period. Seventy-two were primary and 36 repeat repairs. Seven cases were open, 23 laparoscopic, and 78 robotic. Six cases were converted from laparoscopic/robotic to open. In 63 patients, VR was combined with gynecological procedures. There were no statistical differences between primary or recurrent prolapse for the following: demographics, operative time, concomitant gynecologic procedures, complications, blood loss, and graft material type. Length of stay was longer in patients with a history of prior prolapse surgery (p = 0.01). Prolapse recurrence rates for primary repairs were reported at 1.4, 6.9, and 9.7% and for recurrent prolapse procedures 13.9, 25, and 25% at 1, 3, and 5 years (p = 0.13). Mean length of follow-up was similar between groups. Time to recurrence was significantly shorter in patients undergoing repeat prolapse surgery 8.8 vs 30.7 months (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

VR is a better option for patients undergoing primary rectal prolapse repair.

Outcome of a Modified Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse with the Use of a Single or Double Suture: A Case Series of 15 Patients

BACKGROUND Surgery is considered to be a mainstay of therapy for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP). Surgical procedures for FTRP have been described, but optimal treatment is still controversial. The aim of this report is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a simplified laparoscopic suture rectopexy (LSR) in a case series of 15 patients who presented with FTRP and who had postoperative follow-up for six months. CASE REPORT Fifteen patients who underwent a modified LSR at our surgical unit from September 2010 were retrospectively evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 72.5±10.9 years. All 15 patients underwent general anesthesia, with rectal mobilization performed according to the plane of the total mesorectal excision. By lifting the mobilized and dissected rectum cranially to the promontorium, the optimal point for subsequent suture fixation of the rectum was marked. The seromuscular layer of the anterior right wall was then sutured to the presacral fascia using only one or two interrupted nonabsorbable polypropylene sutures. The mean operative time was 176.2±35.2 minutes, with minimal blood loss. No moderate or severe postoperative complications were observed, and there was no postoperative mortality. One patient (6.7%) developed recurrence of rectal prolapse one month following surgery. CONCLUSIONS The advantages of this LSR procedure for the management of patients with FTRP are its simplicity, safety, efficacy, and practicality and the potential for its use in patients who can tolerate general anesthesia.

The use of laparoscopic rectopexy to manage rectal prolapse with Pseudo-Meigs' syndrome in a 64-year-old female: a case report

We report a rare case of rectal prolapse with Pseudo‐Meigs’ syndrome in which laparoscopic bilateral oophorectomy and rectopexy were performed simultaneously and resulted in improved quality of life due to the loss of ascites and the repair of rectal prolapse. Laparoscopic surgery is feasible for rectal prolapse with Pseudo‐Meigs’ syndrome.

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

Purpose

This review reports the incidence of mesh-related erosion after ventral mesh rectopexy to determine whether any difference exists in the erosion rate between synthetic and biological mesh.

Methods

A systematic search of the MEDLINE and the Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2004 and 2015. The search strategy capture terms were laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy, robotic ventral rectopexy, and robotic anterior rectopexy.

Results

Eight studies (3,956 patients) were included in this review. Of those patients, 3,517 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) using synthetic mesh and 439 using biological mesh. Sixty-six erosions were observed with synthetic mesh (26 rectal, 32 vaginal, 8 recto-vaginal fistulae) and one (perineal erosion) with biological mesh. The synthetic and the biological mesh-related erosion rates were 1.87% and 0.22%, respectively. The time between rectopexy and diagnosis of mesh erosion ranged from 1.7 to 124 months. No mesh-related mortalities were reported.

Conclusion

The incidence of mesh-related erosion after LVR is low and is more common after the placement of synthetic mesh. The use of biological mesh for LVR seems to be a safer option; however, large, multicenter, randomized, control trials with long follow-ups are required if a definitive answer is to be obtained.

Abdominal Approaches to Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition with a complex etiology. Symptoms are most commonly prolapse of the rectum and pain with bowel movements or straining, with worsening fecal incontinence over time due to progressive stretching of the anal sphincters. Physical findings are fairly consistent from patient to patient-most notably diastasis of the levator ani muscles, deep pouch of Douglas, redundant sigmoid colon, a mobile mesorectum, and occasionally a solitary rectal ulcer. Evaluation includes a physical exam or imaging demonstrating the prolapse, and evaluating for other causes of pelvic floor dysfunction. Multiple surgical repairs are available, but treatment must be individualized based on patient symptoms and the presence or absence of constipation or other pelvic floor disorders. Mesh repairs have shown promising results, but carry the added risks of mesh erosion, infection, and mesh migration. The optimal repair has not been clearly demonstrated at this time.

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.

Recurrence rate after Delorme's procedure with simultaneous placement of a Thiersch suture

Introduction Rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition usually affecting elderly women. The management is generally surgical but the optimal operation remains unclear. The recurrence rate after Delorme's procedure has been found to be similar to that for an abdominal approach. Thiersch sutures have been associated with high rates of complications and recurrence. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of Delorme's procedure with those of a combined Delorme-Thiersch procedure. Methods A retrospective case note review was performed of all patients who underwent Delorme's procedure for rectal prolapse between 2008 and 2014 in a single centre. Results Sixty-seven patients (63 women) underwent Delorme's procedure during the study period. The majority (85%) of patients were over 75 years old. Twelve patients had a Thiersch suture placed at the time of the procedure. The median length of stay was 3 days (range: 0-19 days). Postoperative bleeding requiring either transfusion or readmission occurred in five patients (7.5%) and two patients (3.0%) were readmitted with pain. There was no difference in the rate of complications regardless of whether a Thiersch suture had been placed. Recurrence occurred in 8.3% of those who had a Thiersch suture compared with 21.8% of those who did not (p=0.26). There was no difference in the median time to recurrence between the groups. Conclusions There was no increase in complications after placement of a Thiersch suture with Delorme's procedure. The rate of recurrence could potentially be decreased with this combined technique. Additional studies are required to investigate this further.

Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Functional Constipation in Korea, 2015 Revised Edition

The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility first published guidelines for chronic constipation in 2005 and was updated in 2011. Although the guidelines were updated using evidence-based process, they lacked multidisciplinary participation and did not include a diagnostic approach for chronic constipation. This article includes guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation to realistically fit the situation in Korea and to be applicable to clinical practice. The guideline development was based upon the adaptation method because research evidence was limited in Korea, and an organized multidisciplinary group carried out systematical literature review and series of evidence-based evaluations. Six guidelines were selected using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II process. A total 37 recommendations were adopted, including 4 concerning the definition and risk factors of chronic constipation, 8 regarding diagnoses, and 25 regarding treatments. The guidelines are intended to help primary physicians and general health professionals in clinical practice in Korea, to provide the principles of medical treatment to medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals, and to help patients for choosing medical services based on the information. These guidelines will be updated and revised periodically to reflect new diagnostic and therapeutic methods.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse: A retrospective study evaluating outcomes in North Indian population

AIM: To analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) in North Indian patients with inherent bulky and redundant colon.

METHODS: The study was conducted at a tertiary health care center of North India. Between January 2010 and October 2014, 15 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh repair for CRP, were evaluated in the present study. Perioperative outcomes, improvement in bowel dysfunction or appearance of new complications were documented from the hospital records maintained prospectively.

RESULTS: Fifteen patients (9 female) with a median age of 50 years (range, 15-68) were included in the study. The median operative time was 200 min (range, 180-350 min) and the median post-operative stay was 4 d (range, 3-21 d). No operative mortality occurred. One patient with inadvertent small bowel injury required laparotomy on post-operative day 2. At a median follow-up of 22 mo (range, 4-54 mo), no prolapse recurrence was reported. No mesh-related complication was encountered. Wexner constipation score improved significantly from the preoperative value of 17 (range, 5-24) to 6 (range, 0-23) (P < 0.001) and the fecal incontinence severity index score from 24 (range, 0-53) to 2 (range, 0-53) (P = 0.007). No de novo constipation or fecal incontinence was recorded during the follow-up. On personal conversation, all patients expressed satisfaction with the outcome of their treatment.

CONCLUSION: Our experience indicates that laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is an effective surgical option for CRP in North Indian patients having a bulky redundant colon.

Delorme's Procedure for Complete Rectal Prolapse: A Study of Recurrence Patterns in the Long Term

Introduction. The objective of this study was to determine the recurrence rate and associated risk factors of full-thickness rectal prolapse in the long term after Delorme's procedure. Patients and Methods. The study involved adult patients with rectal prolapse treated with Delorme's surgery between 2000 and 2012 and followed up prospectively in an outpatient unit. We assessed epidemiological data, Wexner constipation and incontinence score, recurrence patterns, and risk factors. Data were analyzed by univariate and multivariate studies and follow-up was performed according to Kaplan-Meier technique. The primary outcome was recurrence. Results. A total of 42 patients, where 71.4% (n = 30) were women, with a median age of 76 years (IQR 66 to 86), underwent Delorme's surgery. The median follow-up was 85 months (IQR 28 to 132). There was no mortality, and morbidity was 9.5%. Recurrence occurred in five patients (12%) within 14 months after surgery. Actuarial recurrence at five years was 9.9%. According to the univariate analysis, constipation and concomitant pelvic floor repair were the only factors found to be associated with recurrence. Multivariate analysis showed no statistically significant differences among variables studied. Kaplan-Meier estimate revealed that constipation was associated with a higher risk of recurrence (log-rank test, p = 0.006). Conclusions. Delorme's procedure is a safe technique with an actuarial recurrence at five years of 9.9%. The outcomes obtained in this study support the performance of concomitant postanal repair and levatorplasty to reduce recurrences. Also, severe constipation is associated with a higher recurrence rate.

Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review

AIM: To review current applications of the laparoscopic surgery while highlighting the standard procedures across different fields.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken using the PubMed Advanced Search Builder. A total of 321 articles were found in this search. The following criteria had to be met for the publication to be selected: Review article, randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses discussing the subject of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, publications were hand-searched in the Cochrane database and the high-impact journals. A total of 82 of the findings were included according to matching the inclusion criteria. Overall, 403 full-text articles were reviewed. Of these, 218 were excluded due to not matching the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 185 relevant articles were identified matching the search criteria for an overview of the current literature on the laparoscopic surgery. Articles covered the period from the first laparoscopic application through its tremendous advancement over the last several years. Overall, the biggest advantage of the procedure has been minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery. In the case of cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and adrenalectomy, the procedure has become the gold standard without being proven as a superior technique over the open surgery in randomized controlled trials. Faster recovery, reduced hospital stay, and a quicker return to normal activities are the most evident advantages of the laparoscopic surgery. Positive outcomes, efficiency, a lower rate of wound infections, and reduction in the perioperative morbidity of minimally invasive procedures have been shown in most indications.

CONCLUSION: Improvements in surgical training and developments in instruments, imaging, and surgical techniques have greatly increased safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic surgical procedures.

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.

Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a recognized treatment for posterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this review is to provide a synopsis of the evidence for biological mesh use in VMR, the most widely recognized surgical technique for posterior compartment POP.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed was conducted using the search terms "VMR," "ventral mesh rectopexy," or "mesh rectopexy." Six studies were identified.

RESULTS

About 268/324 patients underwent ventral rectopexy using biological mesh with a further 6 patients having a combination of synthetic and biological mesh. Recurrence was reported in 20 patients; however, 6 were from studies where data on biological mesh could not be extracted. There are no RCTs in VMR surgery and no studies have directly compared types of biological mesh. Cross-linked porcine dermal collagen is the most commonly used mesh and has not been associated with mesh erosion, infection, or fistulation in this review. The level of evidence available on the use of biological mesh in VMR is of low quality (level 4).

CONCLUSION

Ventral mesh rectopexy has become prevalent for posterior compartment POP. The evidence base for its implementation is not strong and the quality of evidence to inform choice of mesh is poor.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and pelvic floor disorders

Pelvic floor disorders are different dysfunctions of gynaecological, urinary or anorectal organs, which can present as incontinence, outlet-obstruction and organ prolapse or as a combination of these symptoms. Pelvic floor disorders affect a substantial amount of people, predominantly women. Transabdominal procedures play a major role in the treatment of these disorders. With the development of new techniques established open procedures are now increasingly performed laparoscopically. Operation techniques consist of various rectopexies with suture, staples or meshes eventually combined with sigmoid resection. The different approaches need to be measured by their operative and functional outcome and their recurrence rates. Although these operations are performed frequently a comparison and evaluation of the different methods is difficult, as most of the used outcome measures in the available studies have not been standardised and data from randomised studies comparing these outcome measures directly are lacking. Therefore evidence based guidelines do not exist. Currently the laparoscopic approach with ventral mesh rectopexy or resection rectopexy is the two most commonly used techniques. Observational and retrospective studies show good functional results, a low rate of complications and a low recurrence rate. As high quality evidence is missing, an individualized approach is recommend for every patient considering age, individual health status and the underlying morphological and functional disorders.

Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy better than laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation? A meta-analysis

Ventral mesh rectopexy is an approach in the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse and rectocele. Our aim was to assess whether robotic surgery confers any significant advantages over laparoscopy, and the associated complication rate. Two reviewers performed a literature search using MEDLINE and PubMed databases for studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Five prospective, non-randomised studies were identified and included. A total of 244 patients (101 robotic and 143 laparoscopic) were included in the analysis. Operative time was shorter with laparoscopic surgery, mean weighted difference 27.94 [confidence interval (CI) 19.30-36.57; p < 0.00001]. The conversion rate was not significantly different between groups. There was a trend towards a reduction in length of inpatient stay and early post-operative complications in the robotic group; however, these did not reach statistical significance. Recurrence rates were similar between groups (odds ratio 0.91, CI 0.32-2.63; p = 0.87). Functional results were comparable between groups. Early studies show that robotic ventral rectopexy is a safe option compared to the laparoscopic approach, with overall comparable results. There appeared to be a trend towards a reduction in length of inpatient stay and post-operative complications. These perceived benefits may offset the longer operative times and outlay costs. Larger randomised controlled trials are needed to further evaluate clinical value and cost-effectiveness.

Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse is a safe procedure in older patients: A prospective follow-up study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study is to examine the clinical and functional outcome of laparoscopic posterior rectopexy in a consecutive series of adult patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Preoperative data on demography, life-style practices, medication, comorbidity, and previous surgery for rectal prolapse were ascertained from patient charts. Information on operative procedure, and pre- and postoperative complications were recorded. Short- and long-term follow-up were done after a median of 60 days and 2 years after surgery.

RESULTS

Between 1 February 2009 to 1 June 2012, 81 laparoscopic posterior rectopexies were done. Male-to-female ratio was 4:77, median age 73 [57-80.5] years and median ASA Grade 2. Conversion to open surgery was done in 6.2%, the median operating time was 82 min [66 - 102] and median length of hospital stay was 2 days [2-5.7]. Minor and major complications were seen in 5.3% and 14.8%, respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.2%. Constipation or incontinence improved or disappeared in 65.2% and 74.4%, respectively. The cumulated recurrence rate was 11.1% after a median observation time of 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic posterior rectopexy is a safe and well-tolerated procedure in older patients and can be done with acceptable complications and recurrence rates and short hospital stays. Laparoscopic posterior rectopexy seems to improve bowel function in many patients.

The role of synthetic and biologic materials in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is a significant medical problem that poses a diagnostic and management dilemma. These diseases cause serious morbidity in those affected and treatment is sought for relief of pelvic pain, rectal bleeding, chronic constipation, obstructed defecation, and fecal incontinence. Numerous procedures have been proposed to treat these conditions; however, the search continues as colorectal surgeons attempt to find the procedure that would optimally treat these conditions. The use of prosthetics in the repair of pelvic organ prolapse has become prevalent as the benefits of their use are realized. While advances in biologic mesh and new surgical techniques promise improved functional outcomes with decreased complication rates without de novo symptoms, the debate concerning the best prosthetic material, synthetic or biologic, remains controversial. Furthermore, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy has emerged as a procedure that could potentially fill this role and is rapidly becoming the procedure of choice for the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Bowel and bladder dysfunction following surgery within the presacral space: an overview of neuroanatomy, function, and dysfunction

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The presacral space contains a dense and complex network of nerves that have significant effects on the innervation of the pelvic viscera and support structures. The proximity of this space to the bony promontory of the sacrum has lead to its involvement in an array of corrective surgical procedures for pelvic floor disorders including sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy. Other procedures involving the same space include presacral neurectomy which involves intentional transection of the contained neural plexus to relieve refractory pelvic pain and resection of retrorectal or presacral tumors. Potential complications of these procedures are postoperative constipation and voiding dysfunction.

METHODS

Our aim was to review the current published literature on outcomes following a variety of procedures involving the presacral space and review postoperative bowel and urinary function. We also include an overview of the functional and structural anatomy of the presacral space and its corresponding neural plexi.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that quality data are lacking on the short-term and long-term rates for bowel and bladder dysfunction following surgical procedures involving the presacral space.

Perineal Stapled Prolapse Resection

Perineal stapled prolapse resection is a new technique for external rectal prolapse introduced in 2007. We have done stapled perineal resection for 12 patients with full thickness rectal prolapse between January 2010 and April 2012. Elderly patients with comorbidities and young patients who want to avoid risk of nerve damage, with rectal prolapse up to 8-10 cms were included prospectively for perineal stapled rectal prolapse resection. Functional outcome, complications, operating time, and hospital stay were assessed in all patients. Perineal stapled prolapse resection was performed without major complications in a median operating time of 45 (range, 40-90) min and median Hospital stay was 3 days (3 to 11 days). Preoperative severe fecal incontinence and constipation improved postoperatively in 90 and 66 % of the patients, respectively, and there was no incidence of de novo onset or worsening of constipation in any of the patient. One patient developed small extra peritoneal collection which was managed by conservative treatment. No other complications occurred. At median follow-up of 36 months, all patients were well and showed no early recurrence of prolapse. Perineal stapled rectal prolapse resection is a new surgical procedure for external rectal prolapse, which is safe, easy, and quick to perform.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in an elderly population with external rectal prolapse: clinical and anal manometric results

AIM

We report the clinical and anal manometric results of elderly patients treated with laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

METHOD

From March 2009 to June 2012, patients were consecutively included. A modified laparoscopic Orr-Loygue procedure with posterior mobilisation was used. The patients were evaluated preoperatively, 2 months postoperatively and after 1 year. We registered Wexner incontinence scores and laxative uses by a questionnaire and performed simple anal manometry.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients underwent operation, all women. The median age was 83 years (range 34-99), median prolapse size was 8 cm (range 2-15), and 30 % had previous prolapse surgery. The median operative time was 135 min (range 90-215), and the median length of stay was 2 days (range 1-14). The 30-day morbidity rate was 15 %, and there were two (4 %) deaths within 30 days. There was a significant reduction in incontinence scores after 2 months and 1 year. The anal resting pressures improved from 10 cm H(2)O slightly to 16 cm H(2)O after 2 months, significantly, and still significant after 1 year at 13 cm H(2)O. There were no changes in the use of laxatives. The median follow-up time was 1.5 years (range 0.5-3), and there were two prolapse recurrences (4 %) in this period.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with posterior mobilisation seems to be effective and relatively well tolerated, although not without mortality in elderly debilitated patients. It improves incontinence. With increased life-year expectance, these patients may benefit from a lower risk of recurrence compared with perineal procedures.

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.

Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes after Abdominal Rectopexy and Delorme's Procedure for Rectal Prolapse: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Complete rectal prolapse is characterized by protrusion of full thickness rectal wall through the anal orifice. Despite its rarity more than 100 surgical procedures have been described and there are no good evidence based recommendations for selection of a surgical procedure. This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical outcomes of commonly used procedures for rectal prolapse at our hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty seven patients presenting with complete rectal prolapse between May 2011 to May 2013 were included in this prospective study. Patients underwent either Abdominal rectopexy or Delorme's procedure after evaluation, based on clinical judgment of experienced surgeons. Patient characteristics, complications, post-operative length of hospitalization and clinical outcomes were assessed. Patients were followed up for a mean duration of 14 months.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients underwent Abdominal rectopexy (Posterior mesh rectopexy), ten patients underwent Delorme's procedure. No postoperative mortalities or major complications were noted. Post operative morbidity (minor) was 17% in Abdominal rectopexy group and 10% in Delormes group 0%. Incontinence improved in all six patients (100%) in rectopexy group, four patients (80%) in Delorme's procedure group. Two patients (11%) in rectopexy group reported increase in constipation post operatively. There was one recurrence in Delorme's procedure group with no recurrences in Abdominal rectopexy group.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of rectal prolapse should be individualized to achieve best results. Abdominal rectopexy can be safely applied in most of patients with minimal post operative increase in constipation and recurrence by using posterior mesh rectopexy technique. Delorme's procedure can be performed with minimal morbidity and shorter hospital stay and good functional results with acceptable recurrence rate. Delorme's can be considered as an alternative to rectopexy not only in patients unfit for laparotomy but also in individuals with a short prolpase, avoiding a laparotomy.

Evolution of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery: An evidence-based review

Open surgery for colorectal disease has progressed significantly over the past century from humble beginnings to form the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer and a number of benign conditions. Following the introduction of laparoscopic abdominal surgery, the next stage in the evolution of the specialty began in the 1990s with the first laparoscopic colonic resection. Following some early concerns regarding its safety and oncological efficacy during the latter part of that decade, laparoscopic colorectal surgery rapidly came into mainstream use in the early part of the current century with evidence supporting its use being made available from large scale randomised controlled trials. This article provides an evidence-based summary of this evolutionary process as it relates to both benign and malignant colorectal disease, as well as discussion of the next phase of new technologies such as robotic surgery.

No surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse: what happens with continence?

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the only validated means of treating overt rectal prolapses, but both patients and physicians may decline or postpone the surgical approach. However, little is known on the functional outcome of nonoperated rectal prolapse. The aim of the present study was to highlight the natural history of overt rectal prolapse in patients for whom surgery was avoided or delayed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 206 patients complaining of full-thickness rectal prolapse were referred to a single institution that provided anorectal physiology for functional anorectal disorders. Standardized questionnaires, anorectal manometry, endosonography, and evacuation proctography constituted a prospective database. Fecal incontinence was evaluated with the Cleveland Clinic score (CCIS), and constipation was evaluated with the Knowles Eccersley Scott Symptom score (KESS).

RESULTS

Forty-two nonoperated patients (mean age: 61 ± 16 years) were compared to those of operated patients paired according to age and gender: the mean follow-up was 44 ± 26 months. The two groups had a similar past-history, follow-up, stool frequency, and main complaints, but lower quantified symptomatic scores and a better quality of life were reported in the nonsurgical group. At the end of follow-up, the nonsurgical group did not show any variation in CCI and KESS scores. By contrast, these two scores significantly improved in the rectopexy group. Sixteen nonoperated patients experienced a degradation of their continence status with an average increase of 5 ± 4.3 points of the CCIS. The patients with a CCIS <7 at referral were likely to deteriorate as compared to those having a higher score. Patients with a symptom history longer than 4 years never improved and in two-thirds continence deteriorated throughout the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of the surgical option, patients with a 4-year duration of rectal prolapse and those with mild incontinence had no chance of improvement. These findings may be taken into account when surgery of rectal prolapse is not chosen.

Robot-assisted rectopexy and colpopexy for rectal prolapse

AIM

This video demonstrates a technique for robot-assisted combined rectopexy with colpopexy, but without the use of mesh for rectal prolapse.

METHODS

This case features a 61-year-old woman who presents with complaints of tissue protruding through her rectum and fecal incontinence. On examination, she was found to have circumferential, full-thickness rectal prolapse and perineal descent. We present a technique that combines rectopexy with colpopexy without the use of mesh for repair of rectal prolapse. Postoperative examination revealed resolution of rectal prolapse and good perineal support. This video illustrates a technique that may serve as a useful adjunct to have in one's surgical armamentarium in circumstances when mesh should not or cannot be used, such as in cases that require resection of the sigmoid colon or for patients who simply prefer to avoid the use of mesh.

CONCLUSION

Given that rectal prolapse and posthysterecomy vaginal vault prolapse often occur together, our institution routinely performs colpopexy with rectopexy for rectal prolapse to provide additional support to the pelvic floor as demonstrated in this video.

Rectal prolapse and intussusception

Rectal prolapse continues to be problematic for both patients and surgeons alike, in part because of increased recurrence rates despite several well-described operations. Patients should be aware that although the prolapse will resolve with operative therapy, functional results may continue to be problematic. This article describes the recommended evaluation, role of adjunctive testing, and outcomes associated with both perineal and abdominal approaches.

Laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse to reduce surgical-site infections and length of stay

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is commonly seen in patients with significant co-morbidities. Multiple approaches have been described, including the use of laparoscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic approaches for repair of rectal prolapse are associated with less short-term morbidity than open approaches.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients who underwent laparoscopic or open rectopexy (R) or sigmoid resection and rectopexy (SR + R) between 2005 and 2008. Co-morbidities analyzed included diabetes, body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, cardiac (history of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, previous percutaneous cardiac intervention or surgery), and neurologic disorder (history of transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident). Postoperative complications analyzed included surgical-site infections (SSIs), pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolus, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis. The χ (2) or t test/ANOVA were used to assess significance for categoric and continuous variables, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for morbidity after rectal prolapse repair.

RESULTS

Altogether, 685 patients underwent surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. Most patients underwent open SR + R (open: 247 SR + R, 193 R; laparoscopic: 161 SR + R, 84 R). All patients had similar co-morbidity profiles. Patients undergoing laparoscopic R were significantly older (mean age 61.4 years) than those in the other three groups (p = 0.04). Operating time ranged from 128 min (open R) to 185 min (laparoscopic SR + R; p < 0.001). Open SR + R and open R were associated with significantly more morbidity than laparoscopic SR + R and R [odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.83, p = 0.01]. Comparing all four procedures, there was a trend to decreased overall morbidity with laparoscopic R, but without statistical significance (OR 0.31, 95 % CI 0.07-1.40, p = 0.13). Length of hospital stay (LOS) and SSI rates were significantly lower with laparoscopic R than with the other three procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo laparoscopic rectopexy have a shorter LOS and lower SSI rate than patients who undergo other abdominal procedures for repair of rectal prolapse. Further study is necessary to determine the long-term outcomes from laparoscopic rectopexy, but in high-risk patients the laparoscopic approach can decrease perioperative risk.

Changing approaches to rectal prolapse repair in the elderly

Aim: The abdominal approach to rectal prolapse is associated with lower rates of recurrence but a higher chance of complications and has been traditionally reserved for younger patients. However, longer life expectancy and wider use of laparoscopic techniques necessitates another look at the abdominal approach in older patients.

Methods: This was a retrospective review of data from patients undergoing abdominal repair of rectal prolapse between 2005 and 2011.

Results: Forty-six abdominal repairs (laparoscopic or open suture rectopexy, sigmoidectomy and rectopexy and low anterior resection) were performed during the study period. Twenty-nine repairs (63%) were performed in patients under the age of 70 (average age 51) and 17 (37%) in patients older than 70 (average age 76; range 71–89). Most of the cases performed during the initial 3 years of the study were via laparotomy. However, in the last 4 years, the laparoscopic approach was used in 83% of younger patients and 69% of older patients. Average length of stay was 2.6 days for younger and 3.8 days for older patients. Both groups had similar rates of re-admission: 20% vs 23%. The rate of wound infection was higher in the younger patients (5% vs nil). However, rates of urinary tract infection, two instances (10%) vs four (30%), urinary retention, one instance (5%) vs two (15.4%), ileus, one instance (5%) vs two (15.4%) were higher in the older group.

Conclusion: Wider use of laparoscopy has precipitated a change in the approach to rectal prolapse in older patients. Although associated with a slightly higher rate of post-operative complications, the abdominal approach to rectal prolapse is feasible, safe and effective in patients older than 70 years.

[Transabdominal procedures for functional bowel diseases]

Incontinence and constipation can occur in cases of pelvic floor dysfunction. Purely morphological changes without severe clinical symptoms are not an indication for surgery. Abdominal operations can be classified into procedures with dorsal (with or without bowel resection and with or without mesh implantation) and procedures with ventral rectopexy (with mesh). With respect to constipation and incontinence suture rectopexy alone is inferior to all other procedures. Dorsal and ventral mesh rectopexy and resection rectopexy are all comparable with respect to improvement of incontinence. Ventral rectopexy without dorsal mobilization and resection rectopexy are superior to mesh rectopexy with respect to constipation. Due to poor evidential status treatment is carried out from a pragmatic viewpoint.

Surgery for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a debilitating problem with significant medical, social and economic implications. Treatment options include conservative, non-operative interventions (for example pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, drugs) and surgical procedures. A surgical procedure may be aimed at correcting an obvious mechanical defect, or augmenting a functionally deficient but structurally intact sphincter complex.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical techniques for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults who do not have rectal prolapse. Our aim was firstly to compare surgical management with non-surgical management and secondly, to compare the various surgical techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 6 March 2013), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register (searched 6 March 2013), CENTRAL (2013, issue 1) and EMBASE (1 January 1998 to 6 March 2013) were undertaken. The British Journal of Surgery (1 January 1995 to 6 March 2013), Colorectal Diseases (1 January 2000 to 6 March 2013) and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (1 January 1995 to 6 March 2013) were specifically handsearched. The proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland annual meetings held from 1999 to 2012 were perused. Reference lists of all relevant articles were searched for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult faecal incontinence (other than surgery for rectal prolapse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected studies from the literature, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The three primary outcome measures were change or deterioration in incontinence, failure to achieve full continence, and the presence of faecal urgency.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included with a total sample size of 264 participants. Two trials included a group managed non-surgically. One trial compared levatorplasty with anal plug electrostimulation and one compared an artificial bowel sphincter with best supportive care. The artificial bowel sphincter resulted in significant improvements in at least one primary outcome but the numbers were small. The other trial showed no difference in the primary outcome measures.Seven trials compared different surgical interventions. These included anterior levatorplasty versus postanal repair, anterior levatorplasty versus total pelvic floor repair, total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, end to end versus overlap sphincter repair, overlap repair with or without a defunctioning stoma or with or without biofeedback, and total pelvic floor repair versus repair plus internal sphincter plication and neosphincter formation versus total pelvic floor repair. Sacral nerve stimulation and injectables are considered in separate Cochrane reviews. Only one comparison had more than one trial (total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, 44 participants) and no trial showed any difference in primary outcome measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review is striking for the lack of high quality randomised controlled trials on faecal incontinence surgery that have been carried out in the last 10 years. Those trials that have been carried out have focused on sacral neuromodulation and injectable bulking agents, both reported in separate reviews. The continued small number of relevant trials identified together with their small sample sizes and other methodological weaknesses limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical procedures. Larger rigorous trials are still needed. However, it should be recognised that the optimal treatment regime may be a complex combination of various surgical and non-surgical therapies.