Surgical options and trends in treating rectal prolapse: long-term results in a 19-year follow-up study

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The contemporary literature provides conflicting evidence regarding the precedence of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy over laparoscopic suture rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of mesh and suture rectopexy to improve the surgical management of complete rectal prolapse. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to extract studies based on mesh versus suture rectopexy and published from 2001 to 2023. The articles of interest were obtained from PubMed Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Journal Storage (JSTOR), Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes included rectal prolapse recurrence, constipation improvement, and operative time. The secondary endpoints included the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay duration, mortality, overall postoperative complications, and surgical site infection. A statistically significant low recurrence of rectal prolapse (odds ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.80; p=0.009) and longer mean operative duration (mean difference: 27.05, 95% CI 18.86-35.24; p<0.00001) were observed in patients with mesh rectopexy versus suture rectopexy. Both study groups, however, had no significant differences in constipation improvement and all secondary endpoints (all p>0.05). The laparoscopic mesh rectopexy was associated with a low postoperative rectal prolapse recurrence and a longer operative duration compared to laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Prospective randomized controlled trials should further evaluate mesh and suture rectopexy approaches for postoperative outcomes to inform the surgical management of complete rectal prolapse.

Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In elderly patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse (EFTRP), the exact differences in postoperative recurrence and functional outcomes between laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and perineal stapler resection (PSR) have not yet been investigated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicenter study on 330 elderly patients divided into LVMR group (n = 250) and PSR (n = 80) from April 2012 to April 2019. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery by Wexner incontinence scale, Altomare constipation scale, and patient satisfaction questionnaire. The primary outcomes were incidence and risk factors for EFTRP recurrence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative incontinence, constipation, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

LVMR was associated with fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001), lower prolapse recurrence (p < 0.001), lower Wexner incontinence score (p = 0.03), and lower Altomare's score (p = 0.047). Furthermore, LVMR demonstrated a significantly higher surgery-recurrence interval (p < 0.001), incontinence improvement (p = 0.019), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) than PSR. Three and 13 patients developed new symptoms in LVMR and PSR, respectively. The predictors for prolapse recurrence were LVMR (associated with 93% risk reduction of recurrence, OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.03-0.347, p = 0.001), symptom duration (prolonged duration was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, OR 1.131, 95% CI 1.036-1.236, p = 0.006), and length of prolapse (increased length was associated with a high recurrence risk (OR = 1.407, 95% CI = 1.197-1.655, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.

Delorme's vs. Altemeier's in the management of rectal procidentia: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is a distressing condition for patients and no consensus exists on optimal surgical management. We compared outcomes of two common perineal operations (Delorme's and Altemeier's) used in the treatment of rectal prolapse.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. Peri- and post-operative outcomes following Delorme's and Altemeier's procedures were extracted. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate, anastomotic dehiscence rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were total operative time, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay and coloanal anastomotic stricture formation. Revman 5.3 was used to perform all statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 605 patients were selected; 286 underwent Altemeier's procedure (standalone), 39 had Altemeier's with plasty (perineoplasty or levatoroplasty), and 280 had Delorme's. Recurrence rate [OR: 0.66; 95% CI [0.44-0.99], P = 0.05] was significantly lower and anastomotic dehiscence [RD: 0.05; 95% CI [0.00-0.09], P = 0.03] was significantly higher in the Altemeier's group. However, sub group analysis of Altemeier's with plasty failed to show significant differences in these outcomes compared with the Delorme's procedure. Length of hospital stay was significantly more following an Altemeier's operation compared with Delorme's [MD: 3.05, 95% CI [0.95 - 5.51], P = 0.004]. No significant difference was found in total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, coloanal anastomotic stricture formation and mortality rates between the two approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

A direct comparison of two common perineal procedures used in the treatment of rectal prolapse demonstrated that the Altemeier's approach was associated with better outcomes. Future, well-designed high quality RCTs with long-term follow up are needed to corroborate our findings.

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.

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.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

External rectal prolapse is a relatively rare disease, in which male patients account for a minority. The selection of abdominal repair or perineal repair for male patients has rarely been investigated.

Methods

Fifty-one male patients receiving abdominal repair (laparoscopic ventral rectopexy) or perineal repair (Delorme or Altemeier procedures) at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between March 2013 and September 2019 were retrospectively analysed. We compared the recurrence, complication rate, post-operative defecation disorder, length of stay, and quality of life between the abdominal and perineal groups.

Results

Of the 51 patients, 45 had a complete follow-up, with a median of 48.5 months (range, 22.8–101.8 months). A total of 35 patients were under age 40 years. The complication rate associated with abdominal repair was less than that associated with perineal repair (0% vs 20.7%, P = 0.031) and the recurrence rate was also lower (9.5% vs 41.7%, P = 0.018). Multivariate analysis showed that perineal repair (odds ratio, 9.827; 95% confidence interval, 1.296–74.50; P = 0.027) might be a risk factor for recurrence. Moreover, only perineal repair significantly improved post-operative constipation status (preoperative vs post-operative, 72.4% vs 25.0%, P = 0.001). There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. No patient's sexual function was affected by the surgery.

Conclusions

Both surgical approaches were safe in men. Compared with perineal repair, the complication rate and recurrence rate for abdominal repair were lower. However, perineal repair was better able to correct constipation.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

External rectal prolapse (ERP) is a debilitating condition in which surgery plays an important role. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of abdominal approaches (AA) and perineal approaches (PA) to ERP.

Methods

This was a PRISMA-compliant systematic review with meta-analysis. Studies published between 1990 and 2021 were retrieved. The primary endpoint was recurrence at the last available follow-up. Secondary endpoints included factors associated with recurrence and function. All studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane tool.

Results

Fifteen studies involving 1611 patients (AA = 817; PA = 794) treated for ERP were included, three of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 114 patients (AA = 54; PA = 60)). Duration of follow-up ranged from 12 to 82 months. Recurrence in non-randomized studies was 7.7 per cent in AA versus 20.1 per cent in PA (odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.17 to 0.50; P < 0.001, I² = 45 per cent). In RCTs, there was no significant difference (9.8 per cent versus 16.3 per cent, AA versus PA (OR 0.82, 95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 2.37; P = 0.72, I² = 0.0 per cent)). Age at surgery and duration of follow-up were risk factors for recurrence. Following AA, the recurrence rates were 10.1 per cent and 6.2 per cent in patients aged 65 years and older and less than 65 years of age, respectively (effect size [e.s.] 7.7, 95 per cent c.i. 4.5 to 11.5). Following PA, rates were 27 per cent and 16.3 per cent (e.s. 20.1, 95 per cent c.i. 13 to 28.2). Extending follow-up to at least 40 months increased the likelihood of recurrence. The median duration of hospital stay was 4.9 days after PA versus 7.2 days after AA. Overall, incontinence was less likely after AA (OR 0.32), but constipation occurred more frequently (OR 1.68). Most studies were retrospective, and several outcomes from RCTs were not consistent with those observed in non-RCTs.

Conclusion

The overall risk of recurrence of ERP appears to be higher with PA versus AA. Incontinence is less frequent after AA but at the cost of increased constipation. Age at surgery and duration of follow-up are associated with increased risk of recurrence, which warrants adequate reporting of future studies on this topic.

SURGICAL TREATMENT OF IATROGENIC COMPLEX RECURRENT EXTRASPHINCTER ANORECTAL FISTULA: A CLINICAL CASE

Background: Anorectal fistula is a benign disease with an average prevalence of 1.69/10,000 population. The disease significantly reduces the life quality and has a tendency to relapse. Repeated surgical treatment can lead to anal sphincter impairment. Paraproctitis is the main anorectal fistulas cause. However, there are also iatrogenic traumatic fistulas that occur after various anorectal surgical interventions.Clinical case: A 44-year old female patient applied to the MSU University clinic in March 2020 with perineal wound with permanent purulent discharge. During examination perianal soft tissue defect was determined, the external fistula opening (40x25x25cm) was visualized at the wound bottom, the internal fistula opening (2x3mm) was visualized at 12h of the clock dial. The perianal area is deformed due to scarring. In 2016 the patient underwent surgical «rectocele elimination, posterior colporaphy, levatoroplasty, plastic surgery of the anterior rectal wall». Obstructive defecation syndrome developed during postoperative period, and repeated surgical treatment was performed – anterior anosfincterolevatoroplasty, Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy.On the 9th day, there was a «perianal soft tissue rupture» with bleeding and «local anterior rectal wall damage in the suprasphincter zone». Then «the rectal defect suturing» was performed. The perineal wound was left open. The patient was reoperated in 3 months due to a rectovaginal fistula with no effect. A fistulectomy was performed at the Moscow State University Medical Center with the removal of the anal canal defect by mucosal-submucosal flap. The surgical wound heals by secondary tension.Conclusion: The current studies describe a small number of cases of anorectal fistulas secondary to anorectal surgery. At the same time, there is no data on the further surgical management of such patients. It is important to present the iatrogenic anorectal fistulas cases, not only to analyze the fistula cause, but also to describe the surgical treatment method and its efficacy.

Is it possible to reduce recurrences after Altemeier's procedure for complete rectal prolapse? Twenty-year experience in 130 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

In the attempt to understand the reasons for and to find a solution to the high recurrence rate after perineal surgery for complete rectal prolapse, we retrospectively analysed the long-term results of Altemeier's procedure alone, or associated with Trans-Obturator Colonic Suspension (TOCS) in a large series of patients with a median interval of 84 months (range 6-258).

METHODS

Medical records of 110 patients undergoing Altemeier with levatorplasty (group 1) and 20 patients submitted to the same procedure associated with TOCS (group 2) for newly diagnosed complete rectal prolapse were reviewed. All patients had been recruited after preoperative clinical examination, SF-36 quality of life, continence score and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Mortality was nil. The overall complication and the recurrence rates were 12.3%, and 15.0% (P= 0.769) and 24.6% and 5.0% (P=0.067) in group 1 and 2, respectively. Twelve patients of group 1 with a recurrence were submitted to a redo-Altemeier, 8 to a redo-Altemeier associated with TOCS, and 6 associated with an anterior coloplasty with a mesh. The only patient of group 2 with a recurrence was submitted to a Hartmann's operation. Preoperative vs postoperative mean (SD) continence score was 15.8 (3.1) and 15.6 (3.3) versus 4.1 (1.8) and 3.9 (1.9) in group 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.001). All parameters of SF-36 improved after surgery (P<0.01) and no differences between the 2 groups were found CONCLUSIONS: Long-term results confirmed the safety and effectiveness of Altemeier's procedure for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse, with the limit of a non-negligible incidence of anastomotic complications and recurrences. The combination of Altemeier with TOCS showed a positive trend to a reduction of the recurrence rate, not worsening morbidity and outcomes.

Suture rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for complete full-thickness rectal prolapse and intussusception: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR).

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on the recurrence rates of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) or intussusception (IS) after SR and VMR. Results were pooled and procedures compared; a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients with CRP and IS who underwent VMR using biological versus synthetic meshes. A meta-analysis of studies comparing SR and VMR was undertaken. The Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies score, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to assess the quality of studies.

Results

Twenty-two studies with 976 patients were included in the SR group and 31 studies with 1605 patients in the VMR group; among these studies, five were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall, in patients with CRP, the recurrence rate was 8.6 per cent after SR and 3.7 per cent after VMR (P < 0.001). However, in patients with IS treated using VMR, the recurrence rate was 9.7 per cent. Recurrence rates after VMR did not differ with use of biological or synthetic mesh in patients treated for CRP (4.1 versus 3.6 per cent; P = 0.789) and or IS (11.4 versus 11.0 per cent; P = 0.902). Results from the meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, and the difference in recurrence rates between SR and VMR groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.76).

Conclusion

Although the systematic review showed a higher recurrence rate after SR than VMR for treatment of CRP, this result was not confirmed by meta-analysis. Therefore, robust RCTs comparing SR and biological VMR are required.

Anorectal Disorders: An Update

Anorectal disorders encompass structural, neuromuscular, and functional disorders. They are common, often distressing, and in some cases debilitating, and significantly add to the health care burden. They present with multiple, overlapping symptoms that can often obscure the underlying pathology and can pose significant diagnostic and management dilemmas. A meticulous history and comprehensive digital rectal examination can provide clarity on the diagnosis, appropriate testing, and management of these conditions. Today, with the development of sophisticated diagnostic tools such as high-resolution and high-definition (3-D) anorectal manometry, 3-D anal ultrasonography, magnetic resonance defecography and imaging, and neurophysiological tests such as translumbosacral anorectal magnetic stimulation, it is possible to more accurately define and characterize the underlying structural and functional abnormalities. In this review, we present a succinct update on the latest knowledge with regards to the pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of anal fissure, hemorrhoids, rectal prolapse, intussusception, rectocele, solitary rectal ulcer syndrome, levator ani syndrome, dyssynergic defecation and fecal incontinence.

Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse in the Laparoscopic Era; A Review of the Literature

Rectal prolapse is associated with debilitating symptoms including the discomfort of prolapsing tissue, mucus discharge, hemorrhage, and defecation disorders of fecal incontinence, constipation, or both. The aim of treatment is to eliminate the prolapse, correct associated bowel function and prevent new onset of bowel dysfunction. Historically, abdominal procedures have been indicated for young fit patients, whereas perineal approaches have been preferred in older frail patients with significant comorbidity. Recently, the laparoscopic procedures with their advantages of less pain, early recovery, and lower morbidity have emerged as an effective tool for the treatment of rectal prolapse. This article aimed to review the current evidence base for laparoscopic procedures and perineal procedures, and to compare the results of various techniques. As a result, laparoscopic procedures showed a relatively low recurrence rate than the perineal procedures with comparable complication rates. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy had a small advantage in the improvement of constipation or the prevention of new-onset constipation compared with other laparoscopic procedures. However, the optimal surgical repair has not been clearly demonstrated because of the significant heterogeneity of available studies. An individualized approach is recommended for every patient, considering age, comorbidity, and the underlying anatomical and functional disorders.

Posterior pelvic tilt is a risk factor for rectal prolapse: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence about possible effects of pelvic anatomical characteristics on proctological complications. The aim of our study was to investigate the potential correlation between sagittal pelvic position and rectal prolapse.

METHODS

A study was conducted on a proctology patients and patients without any specific history of proctological disorders who were divided into two groups according to the presence or the absence of rectal prolapse. In all cases, the pelvic angle was measured with a pelvic goniometer and categorized as posterior (< 10°), neutral (10°-15°), and anterior (> 15°). To minimize effects of potential confounders in the analysis, 3:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) method was implemented using age, sex, and diagnose of rectal disorders as confounding variables.

RESULTS

Among the 143 screened patients, posterior tilt was more frequent in the 19 patients with rectal prolapse than in those without prolapse (42 vs. 18%; p = 0.027). This result was also confirmed in the post-PSM analysis (42 vs. 14%; p = 0.036) using 35 propensity score (PS)-matched controls compared with the rectal prolapse group. Posterior tilt was associated with an increased risk of prolapse in both the unmatched population (odds ratio = 3.37; p = 0.020) and PS-matched subset (odds ratio = 4.36; p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

A posterior pelvic angle was more frequently associated with the diagnosis of rectal prolapse. In both the entire population and in the PS-matched subset, posterior tilt was a significant risk factor for rectal prolapse. The easy-to-do investigation of the pelvic angle can provide several benefits in terms of rectal prolapse prevention and more precise management of post-surgical prolapse recurrence.

Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for rectal prolapse has been implemented to reduce postoperative bowel symptoms. The preoperative-to-postoperative change in a double-blinded, randomized study comparing it to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) found no significant difference between the two procedures after one year. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term functional outcomes.

METHODS

From November 2006-January 2014, 75 patients were randomized to LVMR (n = 37) or LPSR (n = 38). In March 2017, questionnaires containing constipation symptom score (PAC-SYM), quality of life score (PAC-QoL), obstructed defecation score (ODS), Cleveland clinic constipation and incontinence scores (CCCS, CCIS) were mailed to all the patients included in the RCT. Prolapse recurrences and mesh complications were recorded.

FINDING

Sixty-nine patients were available for long-term follow-up. Questionnaires were completed by 64 patients (94.4%). The median follow-up was 6.1 years. The total PAC-QoL was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.26 (0.14-0.83) compared to the LPSR group 0.93(0.32-1.61)(P = 0.008). The total PAC-SYM was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.5 (0.21-0.87) compared to the LPSR group 1.0 (0.5-1.5)(P = 0.031). Except for CCIS, the ODS and the CCCS significantly favored the LVMR group at six years (P = 0.011 & 0.017). Only three(8.82%) patients in the LVMR group developed recurrence compared to seven(23.33%) in the LPSR group (P = 0.111).

INTERPRETATION

The long-term functional outcome after LVMR is superior to that after LPSR. Larger multicenter studies are warranted.

FUNDING

None.

Laparoscopic Posterolateral Suture Rectopexy for Recurrent Rectal Prolapse in Children

Introduction: Laparoscopic rectopexy for recurrent rectal prolapse (RP) is more widely used nowadays. Strict indications are needed to get proper outcomes. The advantages rely on the careful dissection of peritoneal sac and fixation of rectum. One of the theories of recurrent RP is hernia-like physiology in front of the rectum. Purpose: The aim of this study is to present our experience of posterolateral laparoscopic suture rectopexy (LSR) in indicated children of recurrent RP. Patients and Methods: Sixteen patients were included with recurrent RP wherein all were subjected to LSR procedure after exclusion of other probable causes. Dissection of peritoneal sac anterior to the rectum was carried out followed by closure of the deep pouch by nonabsorbable sutures then fixation of the right side of rectum and sigmoid to the lateral wall of areolar tissue. Fixation to sacral promontory is done by Ethibond or Prolene sutures when redundancy is obvious. Results: The study included 11 girls and 5 boys with age ranging between 3 and 12 years in the past 5 years. Ten cases were treated earlier with injection therapy and 6 following Thiersh procedure after failure of conservative treatment for 6 months. Operative time ranged between 40 and 100 minutes. Follow-up period ranged between 6 and 36 months with mean of 19.5 months. Postoperative mucosal prolapse reported in 1 case 6 months postsurgery with no full thickness recurrence. Conclusions: LSR is an efficient technique in well-selected children of recurrent RP and could reverse this underlying pathology. Longer follow-up and evidence are needed to standardize the technique.