Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse

Analysis of factors that indicated surgery in 400 patients submitted to a complete diagnostic workup for obstructed defecation syndrome and rectal prolapse using a supervised machine learning algorithm

BACKGROUND

Patient selection is extremely important in obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) and rectal prolapse (RP) surgery. This study assessed factors that guided the indications for ODS and RP surgery and their specific role in our decision-making process using a machine learning approach.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a long-term prospective observational study on female patients reporting symptoms of ODS who underwent a complete diagnostic workup from January 2010 to December 2021 at an academic tertiary referral center. Clinical, defecographic, and other functional tests data were assessed. A supervised machine learning algorithm using a classification tree model was performed and tested.

RESULTS

A total of 400 patients were included. The factors associated with a significantly higher probability of undergoing surgery were follows: as symptoms, perineal splinting, anal or vaginal self-digitations, sensation of external RP, episodes of fecal incontinence and soiling; as physical examination features, evidence of internal and external RP, rectocele, enterocele, or anterior/middle pelvic organs prolapse; as defecographic findings, intra-anal and external RP, rectocele, incomplete rectocele emptying, enterocele, cystocele, and colpo-hysterocele. Surgery was less indicated in patients with dyssynergia, severe anxiety and depression. All these factors were included in a supervised machine learning algorithm. The model showed high accuracy on the test dataset (79%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Symptoms assessment and physical examination proved to be fundamental, but other functional tests should also be considered. By adopting a machine learning model in further ODS and RP centers, indications for surgery could be more easily and reliably identified and shared.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy is considered the standard of care in the surgical management of rectal prolapse syndromes in fit patients. We aimed to investigate the outcomes after robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVR) and compare them with our laparoscopic series (LVR). Additionally, we report the learning curve of RVR. As the financial aspect for the use of a robotic platform remains an important obstacle to allow generalized adoption, cost-effectiveness was also evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospectively maintained data set including 149 consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive ventral rectopexy between December 2015 and April 2021 was reviewed. The results after a median follow-up of 32 months were analyzed. Additionally, a thorough assessment of the economic aspect was performed.

RESULTS

On a total of 149 consecutive patients 72 underwent a LVR and 77 underwent a RVR. Median operative time was comparable for both groups (98 min (RVR) vs. 89 min (LVR); p = 0.16). Learning curve showed that an experienced colorectal surgeon required approximately 22 cases in stabilizing the operative time for RVR. Overall functional results were similar in both groups. There were no conversions or mortality. There was, however, a significant difference (p < 0.01) in hospital stay in favor of the robotic group (1 day vs. 2 days). The overall cost of RVR was higher than LVR.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study shows that RVR is a safe and feasible alternative for LVR. With specific adjustments in surgical technique and robotic materials, we developed a cost-effective way of performing RVR.

Could robotic-assisted surgery reduce mesh-related complications after ventral mesh rectopexy? Experience of a tertiary centre and systematic review of the literature

AIM

The development of robotic assistance has made dissection and suturing in the deep pelvis much easier. The augmented quality of the images and the articulation of the robotic arms have also enabled a more precise dissection. The aim of this study is to present the data on robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy procedures in a university hospital and examine the literature in terms of mesh erosion.

METHOD

The electronic databases Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane were searched. Studies from January 2004 until January 2023 in the English language were included. Studies which included fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were included. Mesh erosion rates following laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were measured.

RESULTS

Overall, the systematic review presents 5911 patients from 43 studies who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with 746 patients treated with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy from six studies and our centre. Mesh erosion was rare in both groups; however, the prevalence was greater in the laparoscopy group (0.90% vs. 0.27%).

CONCLUSION

The mesh erosion rates are very low with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy. For precise results, more studies and experience in robotic surgery are required.

Comparison of Safety and Efficacy between Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy and Delorme's Procedure for External Rectal Prolapse in Nonagenarians

Objectives

This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) in nonagenarian patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) compared to Delorme's procedure.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, including nonagenarian patients who underwent either LVR or Delorme's procedure, comparing outcomes such as morbidity, length of hospital stay (LOS), and recurrence rates.

Results

Between September 2009 and August 2023, 22 patients (median age 91, range 90-94 years) underwent LVR, while 12 patients (median age 91, range 90-96 years) received Delorme's procedure. Baseline characteristics, including sex ratio, parity, American Society of Anesthesiology grade, and Body Mass Index, did not significantly differ between the groups. LVR had a significantly longer operating time but lower blood loss than Delorme's procedure. Postoperative LOS was significantly shorter for LVR patients (median 1, range 1-3 days) compared to Delorme's procedure patients (median 2.5, range 1-13 days; P = 0.001). Notably, no significant morbidity occurred in the LVR group, while one case of delirium and another of solitary rectal ulcer syndrome were observed in the Delorme's procedure group. Recurrence rates were lower in the LVR group, with no recurrences during a median follow-up of 23 months (range 1-65 months), compared to one recurrence at 2 months during a median follow-up of 34 months (range 1-96 months) in the Delorme's procedure group.

Conclusions

LVR is a safe and effective surgical option for nonagenarian ERP patients, showing favorable outcomes in terms of morbidity, LOS, and recurrence rates compared to Delorme's procedure.

Ventral mesh rectopexy. Does a descending perineum impact functional results and quality of life?

PURPOSE

The impact of perineal descent (PD) on functional outcome and quality of life after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of PD on the functional outcome and quality of life (QOL) after VMR.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on fifty-five patients who underwent robotic VMR between 2018 and 2021. Pre and postoperative data along with radiological studies were gathered from a prospectively maintained database. The Cleveland Clinic Constipation score (CCCS), the Rome IV criteria and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), were used to measure functional results and QOL.

RESULTS

All 55 patients (mean age 57.8 years) were female. Most patients had radiological findings of severe PD (n = 31) as opposed to mild/moderate PD (n = 24). CCCS significantly improved at 3 months and 1 year post-VMR (mean difference = -4.4 and -5.4 respectively, p < 0.001) with no significant difference between the two groups. The percentage of functional constipation Rome IV criteria only showed an improved outcome at 3 months for severe PD and at 1 year for mild/moderate PD (difference = -58.1% and -54.2% respectively, p < 0.05). Only the SF-36 subscale bodily pain significantly improved in the mild/moderate PD group (mean difference = 16.7, p = 0.002) 3 months post-VMR which subsided after one year (mean difference = 5.5, p = 0.068).

CONCLUSION

Severe PD may impact the functional outcome of constipation without an evident effect on QOL after VMR. The results, however, remain inconclusive and further research is warranted.

Laparoscopic modified mesh rectopexy: medium-term results of a novel approach for external rectal prolapse

AIM

Rectal prolapse is a common and significantly debilitating condition. Surgical correction is usually required. The two most common abdominal approaches are ventral mesh rectopexy and posterior suture rectopexy. Both may be complicated, respectively, by either mesh-related complications or significant postoperative constipation. We report the outcome of a novel rectopexy operation which combines aspects of both the aforementioned approaches, for the treatment of external rectal prolapse (ERP).

METHOD

The technique involves laparoscopic partial posterior-lateral rectal mobilization of the rectum with posterior suture fixation to the sacral promontory and placement of an absorbable mesh in the rectovaginal space. Data were collected on postoperative complications, prolapse recurrence, mesh-related complications and the assessment of quality of life.

RESULTS

Eighty patients underwent a modified mesh rectopexy for ERP. Seventy-seven were women. The median age was 67.5 years. Almost a third had undergone a previous rectal prolapse repair. Recurrences were seen in 11 (13.8%). No mesh-related complications were seen. Eleven patients reported postoperative constipation.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic modified mesh rectopexy may be a safe and effective operation for the treatment of ERP.

Colonoscopy-assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy (CAPS) for complete rectal prolapse treatment: Case series

Background and study aims We have previously reported on the effectiveness of colonoscopy-assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy (CAPS) for sigmoid volvulus treatment. This study describes the CAPS application to treat complete rectal prolapse by straightening and fixing the rectum. Complete rectal prolapse is common in older women. Due to their comorbidities, management must comprise a simple, safe, and reliable surgical method not involving general anesthesia or colon resection. Patients and methods We enrolled 13 patients in our outpatient department diagnosed with complete rectal prolapse between June 2016 and 2021. The endoscope was advanced into the anterior proximal rectal wall, straightening the intussuscepted sigmoid colon and rectum to approximate the puncture site. The fixation sites were anesthetized with 1% xylocaine, and a 2-mm skin incision was made using a scalpel. A two-shot anchor was used to fix the sigmoid colon to the abdominal wall (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Results The median patient age was 88 years (range: 50-94). The median CAPS procedure time was 30 minutes (range: 20-60). In one patient, the transverse colon was accidentally punctured and interposed between the abdominal wall and sigmoid colon, requiring a laparotomy to remove the causative fixation thread and provide re-fixation. Fecal incontinence was resolved in 10 of 13 cases. Conclusions CAPS is a quick and simple procedure. In addition, it is a treatment option for complete rectal prolapse that can be performed under local anesthesia.

Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series

Introduction: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is the standard procedure for the treatment of posterior pelvic organ prolapse. Despite significant functional improvement and anatomical corrections, severe complications related to mesh augmentation can occur in a few proportions of patients. In order to decrease the number of rare but severe complications, we developed a variant of the conventional VMR without any rectal fixation and using a robotic approach with biological mesh. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with synthetic mesh (LVMRS) to those of robotic ventral rectopexy with biological mesh (RVMRB). Methods: Between 2004 and 2021, patients operated on for VMR in our unit were identified and separated into two groups: LVMRS and RVMRB. The surgical technique for both groups consisted of VMR without any rectal fixation, with mesh distally secured on the levator ani muscles. Results: 269 patients with a mean age of 62 years were operated for posterior pelvic floor disorder: rectocele (61.7%) and external rectal prolapse (34.6%). 222 (82.5%) patients received LVMRS (2004-2015), whereas 47 were operated with RVMRB (2015-2021). Both groups slightly differed for combined anterior fixation proportion (LVMRS 39% vs. RVMRB 6.4%, p < 0.001). Despite these differences, the length of stay was shorter in the RVMRB group (2 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were comparable in the two groups (1.8 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.089) and mainly consisted of minor complications. Functional outcomes were favorable and similar in both groups, with an improvement in bulging, obstructed defecation symptoms, and fecal incontinence (NS in subgroup analysis). In the long term, there were no mesh erosions reported. The overall recurrence rate was 11.9%, and was comparable in the two groups (13% LVMRS vs. 8.5, p = 0.43). Conclusions: VMR without rectal fixation is a safe and effective approach in posterior organ prolapse management. RVMRB provides comparable results in terms of recurrence and functional results, with avoidance of unabsorbable material implantation.

Current diagnostic tools and treatment modalities for rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus. It is a rare condition, and only affects 0.5% of the general population. Multiple treatment modalities have been described, which have changed significantly over time. Particularly in the last decade, laparoscopic and robotic surgical approaches with different mobilization techniques, combined with medical therapies, have been widely implemented. Because patients have presented with a wide range of complaints (ranging from abdominal discomfort to incomplete bowel evacuation, mucus discharge, constipation, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence), understanding the extent of complaints and ruling out differential diagnoses are essential for choosing a tailored surgical procedure. It is crucial to assess these additional symptoms and their severities using preoperative scoring systems. Additionally, radiological and physiological evaluations may explain some vague symptoms and reveal concomitant pelvic disorders. However, there is no consensus on or standardization of the optimal extent of dissection, type of procedure, and materials used for rectal fixation; this makes providing maximum benefits to patients with minimal complications difficult. Even recent publications and systematic reviews have not recommended the most appropriate treatment options. This review explains the appropriate diagnostic tools for different conditions and summarizes the current treatment approaches based on existing literature and expert opinions.

Outcomes of rectal prolapse surgery in patients with benign joint hypermobility syndrome

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is a debilitating disorder of the pelvic floor, and treatment outcomes are variable. Previous studies have identified underlying benign joint hypermobility syndrome (BJHS) in some patients. We sought to determine the outcomes of these patients after undergoing ventral rectopexy surgery (VMR).

METHODS

All consecutive patients who were referred to the pelvic floor unit at our institution between February 2010 and December 2011 were considered for recruitment into the study. Following recruitment, they were assessed using the Beighton criteria to determine the presence or absence of benign joint hypermobility syndrome. Both groups underwent similar surgical interventions and were then followed up. The need for revisional surgery was recorded in both groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients [34 normal; M:F, 1:6; median age 61 (range 22-84) years; 18 BJHS; M:F, 0:1; median age 52 (range 25-79) years] were recruited. A total of 42 patients completed the full 1-year follow-up (26 normal, 16 benign joint hypermobility syndrome). Patients with benign joint hypermobility syndrome were significantly younger (median age 52 versus 61 years, p < 0.001) with male to female ratio of 0:1 versus 1:6, respectively. In addition, they were significantly more likely to require revisional surgery than those without the condition (31% versus 8% p < 0.001). In most cases, this was in the form of a posterior stapled transanal resection of the rectum procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BJHS presenting for rectal prolapse surgery were younger and are more likely to require further surgery for rectal prolapse recurrence than those without the condition.

Laparoscopic or transanal repair of rectocele? Comparison of a reduction in rectocele size

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the reduction in rectocele size after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) with that after transanal repair (TAR).

METHODS

Forty-six patients with rectocele who underwent LVR and 45 patients with rectocele who received TAR between February 2012 and December 2022 were included. This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. All patients had clinical evidence of a symptomatic rectocele. Bowel function was evaluated using the constipation scoring system (CSS) and fecal incontinence severity index (FISI). Substantial symptom improvement was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the CSS or FISI scores. Evacuation proctography was performed before surgery and 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Constipation was substantially improved in 40-70% of the LVR patients and 70-90% of the TAR patients over 5 years. Fecal incontinence was markedly improved in 60-90% of the LVR patients across 5 years and in 75% of the TAR patients at 1 year. Postoperative proctography showed a reduction in rectocele size in the LVR patients (30 [20-59] mm preoperatively vs. 11 [0-44] mm postoperatively, P < 0.0001) and TAR patients (33 [20-55] mm preoperatively vs. 8 [0-27] mm postoperatively, P < 0.0001). The reduction rate of rectocele size in the LVR patients was significantly lower than that in the TAR patients (63 [3-100] % vs. 79 [45-100] %, P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

The reduction in rectocele size was lower in the patients who underwent LVR than in those who received TAR.

Modified robotic ventral rectopexy with folded single titanized mesh suspension for the treatment of complex pelvic organ prolapse

AIM

The incidence of complex pelvic organ prolapse in female patients is about 38%, and this disorder entails social and sexual restrictions. Treatment for this disorder is complex because it can enhance other, latent, problems. The aim of the present study is to describe a new robotic-assisted technique to simultaneously treat prolapses of different compartments with the use of a single titanized polypropylene mesh.

METHOD

All patients referred from January 2018 to March 2019 to the Proctologic and Pelvic Floor Clinical Centre who were affected by complex pelvic organ prolapse underwent modified robotic ventral rectopexy with a folded single mesh (RVR-FSM). The anatomical and functional outcomes were respectively evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) grading system and Wexner scores of constipation and incontinence. The satisfaction rate was investigated using a five-point scale (1 = not satisfied to 5 = extremely satisfied).

RESULTS

Twenty-two women underwent RVR-FSM with a homogeneous follow-up of 12 months. The mean total operation time was 148 min, without any robot-related or other intraoperative complications. No mesh-related complications occurred. The POP-Q grade improved for every patient, with complete resolution of bulging symptoms in 21 patients (95.4%) at 1 year of follow-up. The Wexner constipation score showed a significant improvement, while the incontinence score slightly improved at 1 year after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The use of a single mesh that can be folded was shown to provide significant improvement in functional and anatomical results associated with patient satisfaction. The robotic approach allows surgeons to perform an easier procedure with correct and deep mesh fixation.

Resection rectopexy as part of the multidisciplinary approach in the management of complex pelvic floor disorders

Objectives

Pelvic floor disorders are frequently caused by an organ prolapse involving multiple pelvic floor compartments. In such cases, a multidisciplinary strategy for diagnostic work-up and therapy is required.

Methods

All patients who underwent transabdominal rectopexy/resection rectopexy alone or in combination with simultaneous gynecological pelvic floor reconstruction at our institution between 01/2006 and 12/2021 were included in this retrospective study. The study aimed to evaluate the functional outcome and postoperative complications.

Results

Two hundred and eighty seven patients were assigned to one of the following groups: PG1 - patient group one: after resection rectopexy (n=141); PG2 - after ventral rectopexy (n=8); PG3 - after combined resection rectopexy and sacro (cervico)colpopexy (n=62); PG4 - after combined resection rectopexy and trans-vaginal pelvic floor repair (n=76). The duration of follow-up was 14 months for PG1 (median, IQR 37 months), 11 months for PG2 (mean, SD 9 months), 7 months for PG 3 (median, IQR 33 months), and 12 months for PG 4 (median, IQR 51 Months). The surgical procedure resulted in improvement of symptoms related to obstructed defecation in 56.4 % (22/39) of the patients in PG1, 25 % in PG2 (1/4), 62.5 % (20/32) in PG3, and 71.8 % (28/39) in PG4. "De novo" constipation was reported by 2.4 % (2/141) of patients from PG1. Improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms was reported by 69 % (40/58) of patients in PG1, 100 % in PG2 (2/2), 93.1 % (27/29) in PG3, and 87.2 % (34/39) in PG4. The recurrence rate for external rectal prolapse was 7.1 % in PG1, 50 % in PG2 (1/2), 2.7 % in PG3, and 6.3 % in PG4. A significant difference in terms of severe morbidity (grade ≥ IIIb) and mortality could not be determined between the non-interdisciplinary (PG1 with PG2) and interdisciplinary surgery (PG3 with PG4) (p=0.88, p=0.499).

Conclusions

Based on our results, we can assume that combined surgery is as feasible as rectal surgery alone. In our study, combined interventions were effective and not associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications.

Outcomes for men undergoing rectal prolapse surgery - a systematic review

AIM

Rectal prolapse is considered rare in men but the prevalence can be high in certain populations. It is unclear which surgical approach offers lower recurrence rates and better functional outcomes in men. The aim of this work was to determine the recurrence rates, complications and functional outcomes after prolapse surgery in men.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus databases were systematically searched to identify studies on outcomes following surgical management of full-thickness rectal prolapse in men (over 18 years of age) published between 1951 and September 2022. Outcomes of interest included recurrence rate after surgery, bowel function, urinary function, sexual function and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies involving 1751 men were included. Two papers focused exclusively on men. Twelve studies employed a mixture of abdominal approaches, ten employed perineal approaches and six compared both. The recurrence rate varied across studies, ranging from 0% to 34%. Sexual and urinary function were poorly reported, but the incidence of dysfunction appears low.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of rectal prolapse surgery in men are poorly studied with small sample sizes and variable outcomes reported. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific repair approach based on the recurrence rate and functional outcomes. Further studies are required to identify the optimal surgical approach for rectal prolapse in men.

Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is considered a valid option in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, it involves higher costs than the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to determine if less expensive robotic surgery for rectal prolapse can be safely performed.

METHODS

This study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, from 7 November 2020 to 22 November 2021. The cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources in patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with the da Vinci Xi Surgical Systems was analyzed before and after technical modifications, including the reduction of robotic arms and instruments, and the execution of a double minimal peritoneal incision at the pouch of Douglas and sacral promontory (instead of the traditional inverted J incision).

RESULTS

Twenty-two robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were performed [21 females, 95.5%, median age 62.0 (54.8-70.0) years]. After an initial experience performing traditional robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in four patients, we adopted technical modifications in other cases. No major complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. In total, mean cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources was €6995.5 ± 1058.0, €5912.7 ± 877.0, €2797.6 ± 545.6, and €2608.3 ± 351.5, respectively. Technical modifications allowed a significant reduction in the overall cost of hospitalization (€6604.5 ± 589.5 versus €8755.0 ± 906.4, p = 0.001), number of robotic instruments (3.1 ± 0.2 versus 4.0 ± 0.8 units, p = 0.026), and operating room time (201 ± 26 versus 253 ± 16 min, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering our preliminary results, robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with appropriate technical modifications can be cost-effective and safe.

Complications of Mesh Sacrocolpopexy and Rectopexy: Imaging Review

Sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy are commonly used surgical options for treatment of patients with pelvic organ and rectal prolapse, respectively. These procedures involve surgical fixation of the vaginal vault or the rectum to the sacral promontory with mesh material and can be performed independently of each other or in a combined fashion and by using an open abdominal approach or laparoscopy with or without robotic assistance. Radiologists can be particularly helpful in cases where patients' surgical histories are unclear by identifying normal sacrocolpopexy or rectopexy mesh material and any associated complications. Acute complications such as bleeding or urinary tract injury or stricture are generally evaluated with CT. More chronic complications such as mesh extrusion or exposure with or without fistulization to surrounding structures are generally evaluated with MRI. Other complications can have a variable time of onset after surgery. Patients with suspected bowel obstruction are generally evaluated with CT. Those with suspected infection, abscess formation, and discitis or osteomyelitis may be evaluated with MRI, although CT evaluation may be appropriate in certain scenarios. The authors review the sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy surgical techniques, discuss appropriate imaging protocols for evaluation of patients with suspected complications, and illustrate the normal appearance and common complications of these procedures. ^© RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Pelvic pain is a common prolapse symptom and improvement after ventral mesh rectopexy is more frequent than deterioration or de novo pain

AIM

The aim of this work was to assess the relationship between pelvic pain and rectal prolapse both before prolapse surgery and in the long term after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR).

METHOD

Patients undergoing VMR between 2004 and 2017 were contacted. Outcomes including the severity of pelvic pain were recorded using a numeric rating scale.

RESULTS

Four hundred and seventy eight of the 749 patients (64%) were successfully contacted. Of these, 39% reported pre-existing pelvic pain prior to VMR (group A) and 61% were pain free (group B). The median follow-up time was 8.0 years (interquartile range 5.0-10.0 years). Symptoms of obstructed defaecation were significantly more common (p = 0.002) in group A (91/187, 49%) than in group B (101/291, 35%). In contrast, faecal incontinence was more common (p = 0.007) in group B (75/291, 26%) than in group A (29/187, 15%). In group A, 76% showed improvement in pelvic pain after VMR: 61% were pain free and 39% had partial improvement in their pre-existing pelvic pain. Patients with persistent pelvic pain were younger (p = 0.01) and more likely to have revisional surgery after VMR (p = 0.0003), but there was no relation to the indication for surgery (p = 0.59). In group B, 15% reported de novo pelvic pain after VMR, and this was more common in women under 50 years old (p = 0.001), when obstructed defaecation was the indication (p = 0.03), in mesh erosion (p = <0.05) and when associated with revisional surgery (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Pelvic pain is common (39%) in patients undergoing prolapse surgery, and VMR improves this pain in most patients (76%). However, a significant number of patients fail to improve (12%), experience worsening of pain (12%) or develop de novo pelvic pain (15%).

Natural Orifice Transanal Endoscopic Rectopexy for Complete Rectal Prolapse: Prospective Evolution of a New Technique and Short-term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Endoluminal surgery for the management of rectal prolapse remains largely experimental.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evolution and short-term outcomes of a new endoluminal technique for the management of complete rectal prolapse.

DESIGN

This was a prospective study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single tertiary care teaching center.

PATIENTS

A total of 29 patients were included. The first 12 patients underwent the procedure with our initial technique, and the last 17 patients were subjected to the new modified procedure. The follow-up duration was 3 years for the older technique and 26 months for the newer technique.

INTERVENTION

This technique involves: 1) ventral "suture" rectopexy: rectum is fixed anteriorly to the anterior abdominal wall using percutaneously placed sutures. 2) Posterior rectum is fixed to the sacral promontory using tackers through a submucosal tunnel.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Safety, recurrence, functional outcomes, morbidity, and mortality were the main outcome measures.

RESULTS

There were improvements in constipation and incontinence scores, anal manometric pressures, anorectal angle, anorectal descent, and quality of life postoperatively in both groups. In patients undergoing the modified procedure, there was a significant decrease in duration of surgery (220 ± 48.89 vs 110 ± 12.51 min), shortened hospital stay (4.6 ± 1.71 vs 2.6 ± 0.65 d), decreased recurrence (25% vs 5.8%), and complications (surgical-site infection and retrorectal abscess).

LIMITATIONS

Short follow-up, small sample size, and single-center study were the limitations.

CONCLUSION

This is a novel endoluminal technique for treating rectal prolapse obviating perirectal dissection, abdominal incisions, or a mesh. This can now be performed under complete endoscopic and fluoroscopic vision. It avoids general anesthesia and therefore can be an alternative for patients with comorbid conditions in whom the standard abdominal procedure may not be well tolerated. Larger randomized multicentric studies with longer follow-ups are warranted. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C59.

RECTOPEXIA ENDOSCPICA TRANSANAL POR ORIFICIO NATURAL PARA EL PROLAPSO RECTAL COMPLETO EVOLUCIN PROSPECTIVA DE UNA NUEVA TCNICA Y RESULTADOS A CORTO PLAZO

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía endoluminal para el tratamiento del prolapso rectal ha permanecido en gran parte experimental.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar la evolución y los resultados a corto plazo de una nueva técnica endoluminal para el manejo del prolapso rectal completo.DISEÑO:Estudio prospectivo.ÁMBITOS:Único centro docente de tercer nivel de atención.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron un total de 29 pacientes (19 hombres y 10 mujeres) con prolapso rectal completo. Los primeros 12 pacientes fueron sometidos al procedimiento con nuestra técnica anteriormente descrita y los últimos 17 pacientes fueron sometidos al nuevo procedimiento modificado. La duración del seguimiento es de 3 años para la técnica más antigua y de 26 meses para la técnica más nueva.INTERVENCIÓN:Esta técnica implica: A) Rectopexia de "sutura" ventral: el recto se fija anteriormente a la pared abdominal anterior mediante suturas colocadas percutáneamente. B) El recto posterior se fija al promontorio sacro mediante grapas a través de un túnel submucoso.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Seguridad, recurrencia, resultados funcionales, morbilidad y mortalidad.RESULTADOS:Hubo mejorías en las puntuaciones de estreñimiento (ODS) e incontinencia (SMIS), presiones manométricas anales (reposo y contracción), ángulo anorrectal, descenso anorrectal y calidad de vida post operatoria en ambos grupos. En los pacientes sometidos al procedimiento modificado hubo una significativa disminución en la duración de la cirugía (220 + 48,89 vs 110 + 12,51 minutos), acortamiento de la estancia hospitalaria (4,6 + 1,71 vs 2,6 + 0,65 días), disminución de la recurrencia (25% vs 5,8%) y complicaciones (infecciónes del sitio quirúrgico y abscesos retrorrectales).LIMITACIONES:Seguimiento corto, tamaño de muestra pequeña, estudio de un solo centro.CONCLUSIÓNES:La rectopexia endoscópica transanal por orificio natural (NOTER) es una novedosa técnica endoluminal para el tratamiento del prolapso rectal que evita la disección perirrectal, las incisiones abdominales o la fijación de una malla. Este procedimiento puede realizar hoy día bajo visión completa endoscópica y fluoroscópica. Evita la anestesia general y, por lo tanto, puede ser una alternativa para pacientes con condiciones comórbidas donde el procedimiento abdominal estándar puede no ser bien tolerado. Se justifican estudios multicéntricos aleatorios más grandes con un seguimiento más prolongado para validar aún más esta nueva técnica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C59. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Tunneling of Mesh during Ventral Rectopexy: Technical Aspects and Long-Term Functional Results

Avoiding the extensive damage of pelvic structures during ventral rectopexy could minimize secondary disfunctions. The objective of our observational study is to assess the safety and functional efficacy of a modified ventral rectopexy. In the modified ventral rectopexy, a retroperitoneal tunnel was created along the right side of rectum, connecting two peritoneal mini-incisions at the Douglas pouch and sacral promontory. The proximal edge of a polypropylene mesh, sutured over the ventral rectum, was pulled up through the retroperitoneal tunnel and fixed to the sacral promontory. In all patients, radiopaque clips were placed on the mesh, making it radiographically "visible". Before surgery and at follow up visits, Altomare, Longo, CCSS, PAC-SYM, and CCFI scores were collected. From March 2010 to September 2021, 117 patients underwent VR. Modified ventral rectopexy was performed in 65 patients, while the standard ventral rectopexy was performed in 52 patients. The open approach was used in 97 cases (55 and 42 patients in modified and standard VR, respectively), while MI surgery was used in 20 cases (10 and 10 patients in modified and standard VR, respectively). A slightly shorter operative time and hospital stay were observed following modified ventral rectopexy (though this was not statistically significant). Similar overall complication rates were registered in the modified vs. standard ventral rectopexies (4.6% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.779). At follow-up, the Longo score (14.0 ± 8.6 vs. 11.0 ± 8.2, p = 0.042) and "delta" values of Altomare (9.2 ± 6.1 vs. 5.9 ± 6.3, p = 0.008) and CCSS (8.4 ± 6.3 vs. 6.1 ± 6.1, p = 0.037) scores were significantly improved in the modified ventral rectopexy group. A similar occurrence of symptoms recurrence was diagnosed in the two groups. Radiopaque clips helped to accurately diagnose mesh detachment/dislocation. The proposed modified VR seems to be feasible and safe. Marking the mesh intraoperatively seems useful.

Does Concomitant Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair at the Time of Rectopexy Impact Rectal Prolapse Recurrence Rates? A Retrospective Review of the Prospectively Collected Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Quality Improvement Database Pilot

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is reported in 30% of women presenting with rectal prolapse. Combined repair is a viable option to avoid the need for future pelvic floor interventions. However, the added impact of adding a modicum of middle compartment suspension by closing the pouch of Douglas during a rectal prolapse repair has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess the impact of middle compartment suspension on the durability of rectal prolapse repair. We also aimed to determine whether adding some form of pouch of Douglas closure to achieve middle compartment suspension leads to any improvements in the rates or severity of postoperative constipation or in the rates or severity of postoperative fecal incontinence.

DESIGN

This study was a retrospective analysis of a multicenter prospective database.

SETTING

Data were analyzed from the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Quality Improvement in Rectal Prolapse Surgery database. Deidentified surgeons at more than 20 sites (75% academic, 81% high volume) self-reported patient demographics, previous repairs, symptoms of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation, and operative details, including addition of concomitant gynecologic repairs, use of mesh, posterior or ventral dissection, and sigmoidectomy.

PATIENTS

Patients were included who underwent abdominal repair for rectal prolapse.

INTERVENTIONS

Abdominal rectopexy procedures with and without middle compartment suspension were compared. Middle compartment suspension was defined as excision and closure of the pouch of Douglas with some degree of colpopexy or culdoplasty.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of prolapse recurrence and secondary outcomes of incontinence and constipation were calculated via univariate and multivariable regression by comparing those who underwent rectopexy with and without middle compartment suspension.

RESULTS

Of the 198 patients (98% female, age 60.2 ± 15.6 years) who underwent abdominal repairs (59% robotic), 138 patients (70%) underwent some concomitant middle compartment suspension. Patients who had an added middle compartment suspension seemed to have lower early rectal prolapse recurrences. On multivariable regression to control for age, previous repairs, and the use of mesh, addition of some form of pouch of Douglas repair was associated with a decrease in short-term recurrences.

LIMITATIONS

Our data need to be interpreted cautiously. Future studies are critically needed to further explore this observation, with an a priori, prospective definition of middle compartment suspension, validated measurement of concomitant pathology, and longer follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that some middle compartment suspension at the time of rectal prolapse repair may improve short-term durability of rectal prolapse repair. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C30 .

LA REPARACIN CONCOMITANTE DEL PROLAPSO DE RGANOS PLVICOS EN EL MOMENTO DE LA RECTOPEXIA AFECTA LAS TASAS DE RECURRENCIA DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL UNA REVISIN RETROSPECTIVA DE UNA BASE DE DATOS RECOPILADA PROSPECTIVAMENTE DEL CONSORCIO SOBRE LA MEJORA DE LA CALIDAD DE TRASTORNOS DEL PISO PLVICO

ANTECEDENTES:El prolapso de órganos pélvicos se informa en el 30 % de las mujeres que presentan prolapso rectal y la reparación combinada es una opción viable para evitar la necesidad de futuras intervenciones del suelo pélvico. Sin embargo, no se ha estudiado el impacto adicional de agregar un mínimo de suspensión del compartimento medio cerrando el fonde de saco de Douglas durante una reparación de prolapso rectal.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar el impacto de la suspensión del compartimento medio con respecto a la durabilidad de la reparación del prolapso rectal. Quisimos de igual manera determinar si el agregado de algún tipo de cierre del fondo de saco de Douglas para lograr la suspensión del compartimento medio conduce a alguna mejora en las tasas o la gravedad del estreñimiento posoperatorio así como en las tasas o la gravedad de la incontinencia fecal posoperatoria.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos prospectiva.ESCENARIO:Base de datos Multicenter Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Prospective Quality Improvement. Cirujanos no identificados en >20 sitios (75% académicos, 81% de alto volumen) datos demográficos de pacientes auto informados, reparaciones previas, síntomas de incontinencia fecal y defecación obstruida, y detalles quirúrgicos, incluida la suma de reparaciones ginecológicas concomitantes, uso de malla, disección anterior o posterior y sigmoidectomía.INTERVENCIONES:Se compararon los procedimientos de rectopexia abdominal con y sin suspensión del compartimento medio). La suspensión del compartimento medio se definió como la escisión y cierre del fondo de saco de Douglas con algún grado de colpopexia o culdoplastia.RESULTADOS:El resultado principal de la recurrencia del prolapso y los resultados secundarios de incontinencia y estreñimiento se calcularon mediante regresión uni y multivariable al comparar los que fueron sometidos a rectopexia con y sin suspensión del compartimento medio.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a reparación abdominal por prolapso rectal.RESULTADOS:De los 198 pacientes (98% mujeres, edad 60,2 ± 15,6 años) sometidas a reparaciones abdominales (59% robótica), 138 (70%) fueron sometidas igualmente y de manera concomitante a alguna suspensión del compartimento medio. Los pacientes a los que se les añadió una suspensión del compartimento medio parecían tener menores recurrencias tempranas del prolapso rectal y, en la regresión multivariable para controlar la edad, las reparaciones previas y el uso de malla, la adición de alguna forma de reparación del fondo de saco de Douglas se asoció con una disminución de las recurrencias a corto plazo.LIMITACIONES:Nuestros datos deben interpretarse con cautela. Se necesitan de manera critica, estudios futuros para explorar más a fondo esta observación, con una definición prospectiva a priori de la suspensión del compartimento medio, una medición validada de la patología concomitante y un seguimiento más prolongado.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestros resultados sugieren que alguna suspensión del compartimento medio en el momento de la reparación del prolapso rectal puede mejorar la durabilidad a corto plazo de la reparación del prolapso rectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C30 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Rectocele: victim of availability bias? Results of a Belgian survey of colorectal and gynecological surgeons

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Women with a symptomatic rectocele may undergo different trajectories depending on the specialty consulted. This survey aims to evaluate potential differences between colorectal surgeons and gynecologists concerning the management of a rectocele.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to abdominal surgeons (CS group) and gynecologists (G group) asking about their perceived definition, diagnostic workup, multidisciplinary discussion (MDT) and surgical treatment of rectoceles. The answers of both groups were analyzed with the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test at p < 0.050.

RESULTS

A rectocele was defined as a prolapse of the posterior vaginal wall by 78% of the G and 41% of the CS group. All gynecologists and 49% of the CS group evaluated a rectocele clinically in dorsal decubitus, with 91% of gynecologists using a speculum and 65% using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q) scoring system, compared to < 1/3 of colorectal surgeons. A digital rectal examination was performed by 90% of the CS group and 57% of the G group. A transvaginal ultrasound was only used by the G group, while anal manometry was opted for by the CS group (65%) and minimally by the G group (14%). In the G group, a posterior repair was the preferred surgical technique (78%), whereas 63% of the CS group preferred a rectopexy. Multidisciplinary discussions (MDT) were mostly organized ad hoc.

CONCLUSIONS

An availability bias is seen in different aspects of rectocele evaluation and treatment. Colorectal surgeons and gynecologists are acting based on their training and experience. Motivation for pelvic floor MDT starts with creating awareness of the availability bias.

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.

Laparoscopic Sacral Mesh Fixation for Ventral Rectopexy: Clinical Implications From a Cadaver Study

BACKGROUND

Correct tack placement at the sacral promontory for mesh fixation in ventral mesh rectopexy is crucial to avoid bleeding, nerve dysfunction, and spondylodiscitis.

OBJECTIVE

The present cadaver study was designed to assess the true location of tacks after mesh fixation during laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in relation to vascular and nerve structures and bony landmarks.

DESIGN

This was an interventional cadaver study.

SETTING

This study was conducted after laparoscopic mesh fixation detailed pelvic dissection was performed following a standardized protocol. In addition, 64-row multidetector computed tomography was conducted to further define lumbosacral anatomy and tack positioning.

PATIENTS

Eighteen fresh cadavers (10 female, 8 male) were included in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

True tack position and vascular and neuronal involvement served as outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 52 tacks were deployed (median 3, range 2-3 tacks). Median tack distance to the midsacral promontory was 16.1 mm (0.0-54.2). Only a total of 22 tacks (42.3%) were found on the right surface of the S1 vertebra, correlating with the planned deployment area. In 7 cadavers (38.8%), all tacks were deployed on the planned deployment area. The median distance to the major vessels was 10.5 mm (0.0-35.0), which was the internal iliac artery in half of the cases. Median distance of tacks to the right ureter was 32.1 mm (7.5-46.1). Neither major vessels nor the ureter was injured. Dissection of the hypogastric plexus was undertaken in 14 cadavers, and in each cadaver, tacks affected the hypogastric nerve plexus.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the moderate number of cadavers.

CONCLUSIONS

Tack placement showed significant variation in our specimen, emphasising the need for reliable anatomic landmarks and sufficient exposure during ventral mesh rectopexy. Hypogastric nerve plexus involvement is common, thus detailed functional assessment after surgery is required. It also points out the importance of cadaver studies before implementing new surgical techniques into clinical practice. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B827.

FIJACIN LAPAROSCPICA DE MALLA SACRA PARA RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL IMPLICACIONES CLNICAS DE UN ESTUDIO SOBRE CADAVERS

ANTECEDENTES:La colocación correcta de la tachuela en el promontorio sacro para la fijación de la malla en la rectopexia con malla ventral es crucial para evitar hemorragias, disfunción nerviosa y espondilodiscitis.OBJETIVO:El presente estudio en cadáveres fue diseñado para evaluar la verdadera ubicación de las tachuelas después de la fijación de la malla durante la rectopexia laparoscópica con malla ventral en relación con las estructuras vasculares y nerviosas y los puntos de referencia óseos.DISEÑO:Estudio intervencionista de cadáveres.AJUSTE:Después de la fijación laparoscópica de la malla, se realizó una disección pélvica detallada siguiendo un protocolo estandarizado. Además, se realizó una tomografía computarizada multidetector de 64 cortes para definir mejor la anatomía lumbosacra y la posición de la tachuela.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en este estudio dieciocho cadáveres frescos (10 mujeres, 8 hombres).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Posición real de tachuela y compromiso vascular y neuronal.RESULTADOS:Se utilizaron un total de 52 tachuelas (mediana 3, 2-3 tachuelas). La distancia media de tachuela al promontorio sacro medio fue de 16,1 mm (0,0-54,2). Solo se encontraron un total de 22 tachuelas (42,3%) en la superficie derecha de la vértebra S1, correlacionándose con el área planificada. En siete cadáveres (38,8%) todas las tachuelas se utilizaron en el área de planificada. La distancia media a los vasos principales fue de 10,5 mm (0,0-35,0), que era la arteria ilíaca interna en la mitad de los casos. La distancia media de las tachuelas al uréter derecho fue de 32,1 mm (7,5-46,1). No se lesionó ni los grandes vasos ni el uréter. La disección del plexo hipogástrico se realizó en 14 cadáveres y en cada cadáver, las tachuelas afectaron el plexo nervioso hipogástrico.LIMITACIONES:Número moderado de cadáveres incluidos en el estudio.CONCLUSIONES:La colocación de tachuelas mostró una variación significativa en nuestra muestra, enfatizando la necesidad de puntos de referencia anatómicos confiables y una exposición suficiente durante la rectopexia con malla ventral. La afectación del plexo nervioso hipogástrico es común, por lo que se requiere una evaluación funcional detallada después de la cirugía. También destaca la importancia de los estudios sobre cadáveres antes de implementar nuevas técnicas quirúrgicas en la práctica clínica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B827. (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado).

Clinical outcomes of surgical management for recurrent rectal prolapse: a multicenter retrospective study

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for rectal prolapse. Both synthetic and biologic mesh are used. No consensus exists on the preferred type of mesh material. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish an overview of the current literature on mesh-related complications and recurrence after VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh to aid evidence-based decision making in preferred mesh material.

Methods

A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane was performed (from inception until September 2020). Studies evaluating patients who underwent VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh were eligible. The MINORS score was used for quality assessment.

Results

Thirty-two studies were eligible after qualitative assessment. Eleven studies reported on mesh-related complications including 4001 patients treated with synthetic mesh and 762 treated with biologic mesh. The incidence of mesh-related complications ranged between 0 and 2.4% after synthetic versus 0–0.7% after biologic VMR. Synthetic mesh studies showed a pooled incidence of mesh-related complications of 1.0% (95% CI 0.5–1.7). Data of biologic mesh studies could not be pooled. Twenty-nine studies reported on the risk of recurrence in 2371 synthetic mesh patients and 602 biologic mesh patients. The risk of recurrence varied between 1.1 and 18.8% for synthetic VMR versus 0–15.4% for biologic VMR. Cumulative incidence of recurrence was found to be 6.1% (95% CI 4.3–8.1) and 5.8% (95% CI 2.9–9.6), respectively. The clinical and statistical heterogeneity was high.

Conclusions

No definitive conclusions on preferred mesh type can be made due to the quality of the included studies with high heterogeneity amongst them.

Predictive Factors for Recurrence of External Rectal Prolapse after Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy

Objectives:

This study aimed to evaluate factors that contribute to the recurrence of external rectal prolapse (ERP) following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR).

Methods:

All patients who underwent LVR using synthetic meshes between 2011 and 2018 were prospectively included. A standard questionnaire including the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) and Constipation Scoring System (CSS) was administered preoperatively and postoperatively. Defecography was performed 6 months postoperatively. Univariate and backward stepwise multivariate Cox analysis was performed to determine the prognostic factors of recurrence.

Results:

In total, 132 patients with a median follow-up of 46 months were included. The overall recurrence rate was 6.8% (n = 9), as confirmed by defecography at 6 months in six of the patients. None of the patients developed mesh erosion. FISI and CSS scores were significantly reduced at 3 months and remained significantly reduced for 3 years. Multivariate analyses revealed that the predictors of recurrence included male sex (hazards ratio, 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-43.0) and age >80 years (hazards ratio, 10.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-86.3). Eight patients with recurrence underwent surgery via Delorme's procedure (n = 7) and posterior rectopexy (n = 1). Two patients with new-onset rectoanal intussusception and one with uncorrected sigmoidocoele underwent repeat LVR.

Conclusions:

LVR is effective in treating ERP with low morbidity and low recurrence. Male patients and patients older than 80 years are at increased risk of recurrence. Hence, the LVR technique should be modified or coupled with other perineal procedures when treating ERP, especially in male patients.

Non-drug therapies for the management of chronic constipation in adults: the CapaCiTY research programme including three RCTs

Background

Chronic constipation affects 1–2% of adults and significantly affects quality of life. Beyond the use of laxatives and other basic measures, there is uncertainty about management, including the value of specialist investigations, equipment-intensive therapies using biofeedback, transanal irrigation and surgery.

Objectives

(1) To determine whether or not standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback is more clinically effective than standardised specialist-led habit training alone, and whether or not outcomes of such specialist-led interventions are improved by stratification to habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback or habit training alone based on prior knowledge of anorectal and colonic pathophysiology using standardised radiophysiological investigations; (2) to compare the impact of transanal irrigation initiated with low-volume and high-volume systems on patient disease-specific quality of life; and (3) to determine the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with controls at short-term follow-up.

Design

The Chronic Constipation Treatment Pathway (CapaCiTY) research programme was a programme of national recruitment with a standardised methodological framework (i.e. eligibility, baseline phenotyping and standardised outcomes) for three randomised trials: a parallel three-group trial, permitting two randomised comparisons (CapaCiTY trial 1), a parallel two-group trial (CapaCiTY trial 2) and a stepped-wedge (individual-level) three-group trial (CapaCiTY trial 3).

Setting

Specialist hospital centres across England, with a mix of urban and rural referral bases.

Participants

The main inclusion criteria were as follows: age 18–70 years, participant self-reported problematic constipation, symptom onset > 6 months before recruitment, symptoms meeting the American College of Gastroenterology’s constipation definition and constipation that failed treatment to a minimum basic standard. The main exclusion criteria were secondary constipation and previous experience of study interventions.

Interventions

CapaCiTY trial 1: group 1 – standardised specialist-led habit training alone (n = 68); group 2 – standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (n = 68); and group 3 – standardised radiophysiological investigations-guided treatment (n = 46) (allocation ratio 3 : 3 : 2, respectively). CapaCiTY trial 2: transanal irrigation initiated with low-volume (group 1, n = 30) or high-volume (group 2, n = 35) systems (allocation ratio 1 : 1). CapaCiTY trial 3: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy performed immediately (n = 9) and after 12 weeks’ (n = 10) and after 24 weeks’ (n = 9) waiting time (allocation ratio 1 : 1 : 1, respectively).

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were standardised outcomes for all three trials. The primary clinical outcome was mean change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score at the 6-month, 3-month or 24-week follow-up. The secondary clinical outcomes were a range of validated disease-specific and psychological scoring instrument scores. For cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life-year estimates were determined from individual participant-level cost data and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, data. Participant experience was investigated through interviews and qualitative analysis.

Results

A total of 275 participants were recruited. Baseline phenotyping demonstrated high levels of symptom burden and psychological morbidity. CapaCiTY trial 1: all interventions (standardised specialist-led habit training alone, standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback and standardised radiophysiological investigations-guided habit training alone or habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback) led to similar reductions in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score (approximately –0.8 points), with no statistically significant difference between habit training alone and habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (–0.03 points, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.27 points; p = 0.8445) or between standardised radiophysiological investigations and no standardised radiophysiological investigations (0.22 points, 95% confidence interval –0.11 to 0.55 points; p = 0.1871). Secondary outcomes reflected similar levels of benefit for all interventions. There was no evidence of greater cost-effectiveness of habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback or stratification by standardised radiophysiological investigations compared with habit training alone (with the probability that habit training alone is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gain; p = 0.83). Participants reported mixed experiences and similar satisfaction in all groups in the qualitative interviews. CapaCiTY trial 2: at 3 months, there was a modest reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score, from a mean of 2.4 to 2.2 points (i.e. a reduction of 0.2 points), in the low-volume transanal irrigation group compared with a larger mean reduction of 0.6 points in the high-volume transanal irrigation group (difference –0.37 points, 95% confidence interval –0.89 to 0.15 points). The majority of participants preferred high-volume transanal irrigation, with substantial crossover to high-volume transanal irrigation during follow-up. Compared with low-volume transanal irrigation, high-volume transanal irrigation had similar costs (median difference –£8, 95% confidence interval –£240 to £221) and resulted in significantly higher quality of life (0.093 quality-adjusted life-years, 95% confidence interval 0.016 to 0.175 quality-adjusted life-years). CapaCiTY trial 3: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy resulted in a substantial short-term mean reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score (–1.09 points, 95% confidence interval –1.76 to –0.41 points) and beneficial changes in all other outcomes; however, significant increases in cost (£5012, 95% confidence interval £4446 to £5322) resulted in only modest increases in quality of life (0.043 quality-adjusted life-years, 95% confidence interval –0.005 to 0.093 quality-adjusted life-years), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £115,512 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Conclusions

Excluding poor recruitment and underpowering of clinical effectiveness analyses, several themes emerge: (1) all interventions studied have beneficial effects on symptoms and disease-specific quality of life in the short term; (2) a simpler, cheaper approach to nurse-led behavioural interventions appears to be at least as clinically effective as and more cost-effective than more complex and invasive approaches (including prior investigation); (3) high-volume transanal irrigation is preferred by participants and has better clinical effectiveness than low-volume transanal irrigation systems; and (4) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in highly selected participants confers a very significant short-term reduction in symptoms, with low levels of harm but little effect on general quality of life.

Limitations

All three trials significantly under-recruited [CapaCiTY trial 1, n = 182 (target 394); CapaCiTY trial 2, n = 65 (target 300); and CapaCiTY trial 3, n = 28 (target 114)]. The numbers analysed were further limited by loss before primary outcome.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11791740, ISRCTN11093872 and ISRCTN11747152.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Modified Gant procedure for treatment of internal rectal prolapse in elderly women

BACKGROUND

Although rectal prolapse is not a life-threatening condition, it can cause defecation disorders, anal incontinence, sensory abnormalities, and other problems that can seriously affect quality of life.

AIM

To study the efficacy of the modified Gant procedure for elderly women with internal rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Sixty-three elderly female patients with internal rectal prolapse underwent the modified Gant procedure. The preoperative and postoperative anal symptoms, Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL), Wexner incontinence score, incontinence quality of life score, and complications (massive hemorrhage, infection, anorectal stenosis, and anorectal fistula) were compared.

RESULTS

The improvement rates of postoperative symptoms were defecation disorders (84.5%), anal distention (69.6%), defecation sensation (81.4%), frequent defecation (88.7%), and anal incontinence (42.9%) (P < 0.05). All dimensions and total scores of the PAC-QOL after the procedure were lower than those before the operation (P < 0.05). The postoperative anal incontinence score and Wexner score were significantly lower than those before the procedure (P < 0.05). The quality of life and total scores of postoperative anal incontinence were significantly higher than those before the procedure (P < 0.05). There were no serious complications and no deaths.

CONCLUSION

The modified Gant procedure has significant advantages in the treatment of elderly women with internal rectal prolapse.

Long-term annual functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectoanal intussusception and/or rectocele: evaluation of sustained improvement

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term annual functional results and quality of life (QOL) after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for rectoanal intussusception (RAI) and/or rectocele.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The study was conducted on patients who underwent LVR for RAI and/or rectocele at our institution between February 2012 and July 2015. The Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), Constipation Scoring System (CSS), and QOL instruments (i.e., 36-item Short-form Health Survey [SF-36], Patient Assessment of Constipation-QOL [PAC-QOL] scale, and Fecal Incontinence-QOL [FIQL]) were administered before and annually after surgery. The sustainability of substantial symptom improvement (reduction of at least 50% in CSS or FISI scores) postoperatively was evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (median age 76 [range 60-93] years, 48 women [94%]) were analyzed. No mortality or major morbidity occurred. After a median follow-up of 60 months (range 12-84 months), no mesh-related complications occurred. The median CSS and FISI scores were significantly reduced at 1 year and remained significantly reduced for 7 years. In patients who reported symptom scores ≥ 3 times postoperatively, sustained improvement of constipation and fecal incontinence was found in about 50% (18/38) and 75% (26/35) of relevant patients, respectively. All PAC-QOL and FIQL scales significantly improved over time for 5 years. Of the SF-36 scales, four showed significant improvement at 1 year but none was significantly improved after 3 years, except for the social functioning scale.

CONCLUSIONS

LVR for RAI and/or rectocele was associated with low morbidity and long-term improvement in symptom-specific QOL. The sustainability of postoperative improvement in fecal incontinence was satisfactory, and that in constipation was fair.

European Society of Coloproctology guidance on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery

This is a comprehensive and rigorous review of currently available data on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery. This guideline outlines the limitations of available data and the challenges of interpretation, followed by best possible recommendations.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Ventral mesh rectopexy is frequently performed as a means of improving the quality of life for sufferers of rectal prolapse. The minimally invasive approach is highly desirable but can be technically difficult to achieve in the narrow confines of the pelvis. The robotic platform is becoming a more common means of overcoming these difficulties, but evidence of an objective benefit over standard laparoscopy is scarce. This study seeks to review and analyse the data comparing outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for papers comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Comparable data was pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Sample sizes were relatively small, and only two of the studies were randomised. Pooled analysis was possible for data on operating time, complication rates, conversion rates and length of stay in hospital. This showed a non-significant trend towards longer operating times and a statistically significant reduction in length of stay after robotic procedures. There was no significant difference in complication and conversion rates.

CONCLUSION

The frequent finding of longer operating time for robotic surgery was not confirmed in this study. Shorter length of stay in hospital was seen, with other post-operative outcomes showing no significant difference. More data is needed with cost-benefit analyses to show whether the robotic platform is justified.

Meta-analysis on current status, efficacy, and safety of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse treatment: can robotic surgery become the gold standard?

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted surgery and robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy are gaining attention in the treatment of rectal prolapse and increased positive findings are proposed. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is comparable with the conventional laparoscopic approach surgery.

METHODS

Five major databases (PubMed, Sciencedirect, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies. Observational studies of the effect and safety of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic approaches on ventral mesh rectopexy were included. Odd ratios (OR) and weight mean difference (WMD) were used for dichotomous data and continuous data analysis. Clinical outcomes, functional outcomes, and cost-effectiveness data were extracted for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared to the laparoscopic approach, a significant shorter length of hospital stay (LOS), lesser intraoperative blood loss, and lower post-operative complication rate of RVMR group were observed. However, operation time of RVMR was significant increased. The expense of RVMR was higher than LVMR; mean Wexner scores and fecal incontinence were lower in RVMR group while there were no statistical differences.

CONCLUSION

The result of the current analysis revealed that the robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is effective and feasible in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, long-term follow-up and results are needed for the promotion of this approach. There is a long way for robotic-assisted surgery to become a gold standard in rectal surgery.

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.

Surgical Techniques for Rectal Prolapse

Complete rectal prolapse or rectal procidentia is a debilitating disease that presents with fecal incontinence, constipation, and rectal discharge. Definitive surgical techniques described for this disease include perineal procedures such as mucosectomy and rectosigmoidectomy, and abdominal procedures such as rectopexy with or without mesh and concomitant resection. The debate over these techniques regarding the lowest recurrence and morbidity rates, and the best functional outcomes for constipation or incontinence, has been going on for decades. The heterogeneity of available studies does not allow us to draw firm conclusions. This article aims to review the surgical techniques for complete rectal prolapse based on the current evidence base regarding surgical and functional outcomes.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy (LMR) and laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) in patients with rectal prolapse.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits. Recurrence, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), surgical site infections, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome measures.

RESULTS

We identified 5 comparative studies reporting a total of 307 patients evaluating outcomes of LMR (n=160) or LPSR (n=147) in patients with rectal prolapse. LMR was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.28, P=0.009) but longer procedure time (MD: 23.93, P<0.0001) compared to LPSR. However, there was no significant difference in CCIS (MD: -1.02, P=0.50), CCCS (MD: -1.54, P=0.47), surgical site infection (OR: 1.48, P=0.71), and length of hospital stay (MD: -1.54, P=0.47) between two groups. No mesh erosion was reported in any of the included studies at maximum follow-up point. Sub-group analyses with respect to ventral mesh rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy, randomised studies, and adult patients were consistent with the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LMR seems to be associated with lower recurrence but longer procedure time compared to LPSR. Although no mesh-related complications have been reported by the included studies, no definitive conclusions can be made considering that the included studies were inadequately powered for such outcome. Future high-quality randomised studies with adequate sample size are required.

Anatomo-functional outcomes of the laparoscopic Frykman-Goldberg procedure for rectal prolapse in a tertiary referral centre

Rectal prolapse is a common disorder that represents a burden for patients due to the associated symptoms that may include both incontinence and constipation. Currently, a huge variation in techniques exist. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anatomo-functional results of the laparoscopic Frykman-Goldberg procedure (LFGP) for the treatment of both internal (IRP) and complete rectal prolapse (CRP). Between July 2004 and October 2019, 45 patients with IRP and CRP underwent a LFGP. The Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Syndrome Score (ODSS) and Vaizey Score (VS) were assessed preoperatively, 3 months before the procedure, 12 months after the procedures and at the final follow-up visit. The patients' mean age was 51.4 ± 17.9 (15-93) years, and the mean follow-up was 9.24 ± 4.57 (1.6-16.3) years. The VS, CCCS and ODSS significantly improved (p = 0.008; p < 0.001; p < 0.001) from median preoperative values of 3, 20 and 18 to 2, 6 and 5, respectively. Furthermore, the improvements in scores during follow-up remained constant and significant over time when considering the two groups separately (time effect for ODSS p < 0.001, for VS p = 0.026, for CCCS p < 0.001) and when the patients were divided by age (< 40, 41-60 and > 60; p < 0.001). The overall complication rate was 8.9% (4/45), and no intraoperative complications or anastomotic leakage occurred. Conversion to the open approach was not necessary in any case. The overall success rate was 97.7%, and only one recurrence in the IRP group occurred after 14 months. LRGP can be considered a safe, effective and long-lasting procedure in young patients with IRP or CRP, a history of ODS and a redundant sigmoid colon.

Does ventral mesh rectopexy at the time of sacrocolpopexy prevent subsequent posterior wall prolapse?

Objective:

To determine whether ventral mesh rectopexy at the time of sacrocolpopexy reduces the rate of future posterior wall prolapse.

Material and Methods:

This was a retrospective cohort study of women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) who underwent sacrocolpopexy or without concomitant rectopexy at a single community hospital from December 1, 2015 to June 30, 2019. Preoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) and urodynamic testing was used in evaluation of POP. Patients were followed for 12-weeks postoperatively and a 12-week postoperative POP-Q assessment was completed. The incidence of new or recurrent posterior prolapse was compared between cohorts.

Results:

Women with POP (n=150) were recruited, of whom 41 (27.3%) underwent sacrocolpopexy while the remainder (n=109, 72.7%) did not receive rectopexy. Patient demographics did not statistically differ between cohorts. Post-surgical posterior wall prolapse was reduced in the robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) + rectopexy group compared to RASC alone, however this did not reach statistical significance. There were no patients who underwent concomitant rectopexy and RASC that needed recurrent posterior wall prolapse surgery, compared to eight-percent of patients that underwent isolated RASC procedures.

Conclusion:

Our findings suggest a reduction in the need for subsequent posterior wall surgery when rectopexy is performed at the time of sacrocolpopexy. In our study, no future surgery for POP was found in the concomitant sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy group, while a small proportion of the RASC only group required future POP surgery. Our study, however, was underpowered to elucidate a statistically significant difference between groups. Future larger studies are needed to confirm a reduced risk of posterior wall prolapse in patients who undergo concomitant RASC and rectopexy.