Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients

Transabdominal levatorplasty technique in laparoscopic mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is characterized by a full-thickness intussusception of the rectal wall and is associated with a spectrum of coexisting anatomic abnormalities. We developed the transabdominal levatorplasty technique for laparoscopic rectopexy, inspired by Altemeier's procedure. In this method, following posterior mesorectum dissection, we expose the levator ani muscle just behind the anorectal junction. Horizontal sutures, using nonabsorbable material, are applied to close levator diastasis associated with rectal prolapse. The aim of the transabdominal levatorplasty is to (i) reinforce the pelvic floor, (ii) narrow the anorectal hiatus, and (iii) reconstruct the anorectal angle. We report a novel transabdominal levatorplasty technique during laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse. The laparoscopic mesh rectopexy with levatorplasty technique was performed in eight cases: six underwent unilateral Orr-Loygue procedure, one modified Wells procedure, and one unilateral Orr-Loygue procedure combined with sacrocolpopexy for uterine prolapse. The median follow-up period was 178 (33-368) days, with no observed recurrences. Six out of seven patients with fecal incontinence experienced symptomatic improvement. Although the sample size is small and the follow-up period is short, this technique has the potential to reduce the recurrence rate and improve functional outcomes, as with levatorplasty of Altemeier's procedure. We believe that this technique may have the potential to become an option for rectal prolapse surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients

PURPOSE

Obstructed defecation syndrome represents 50-60% of patients with symptoms of constipation. We aimed to compare the two frequently performed surgical methods, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair, for this condition in terms of functional and surgical outcomes.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of 131 female patients who were diagnosed with obstructed defecation syndrome, attributed to rectocele with or without rectal intussusception, enterocele, hysterocele or cystocele, and who underwent either laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy or transperineal mesh repair. Patients were evaluated for surgical outcomes based on the operative time, the length of hospital stay, operative complications, using prospectively designed charts. Functional outcome was assessed by using the Initial Measurement of Patient-Reported Pelvic Floor Complaints Tool.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients diagnosed with complex rectocele underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, and 80 patients diagnosed with simple rectocele underwent transperineal mesh repair. Mean age was found to be 50.35 ± 13.51 years, and mean parity 2.14 ± 1.47. Obstructed defecation symptoms significantly improved in both study groups, as measured by the Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory, Constipation Severity Instrument and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms scores. Minor postoperative complications including wound dehiscence (n = 3) and wound infection (n = 2) occurred in the transperineal mesh repair group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair are efficient and comparable techniques in terms of improvement in constipation symptoms related to obstructed defecation syndrome. A selective distribution of patients with or without multicompartmental prolapse to one of the treatment arms might be the preferred strategy.

A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse

PURPOSE

Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse can be undertaken via an abdominal or a perineal approach. The present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of different abdominal and perineal procedures for rectal prolapse in terms of recurrence, complications, and improvement in fecal incontinence (FI).

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized clinical trials comparing two or more procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROB-2 tool. The main outcomes were recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse, complications, operation time, and improvement in FI.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with 728 patients were included. The follow-up ranged between 12 and 47 months. Posterior mesh rectopexy had significantly lower odds of recurrence than did the Altemeier procedure (logOR, - 12.75;  95% credible intervals, - 40.91, - 1.75), Delorme procedure (- 13.10; - 41.26, - 2.09), resection rectopexy (- 11.98; - 41.36, - 0.19), sponge rectopexy (- 13.19; - 42.87, - 0.54), and sutured rectopexy (- 13.12; - 42.58, - 1.50), but similar odds to ventral mesh rectopexy (- 12.09; - 41.7, 0.03). Differences among the procedures in complications, operation time, and improvement in FI were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior mesh rectopexy ranked best with the lowest recurrence while perineal procedures ranked worst with the highest recurrence rates.

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.

Colonoscopy-assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy for a complete rectal prolapse: A case report

Colonoscopy‐assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy is a simple and swift procedure that does not require general anesthesia. While we first developed this procedure for treating sigmoid volvulus, we herein present the first case in which we used it to correct a complete rectal prolapse in an older patient. Existing treatment modalities for rectal prolapses are limited by high recurrence rates, greater invasiveness, and greater complications; thus, there is a need for minimally invasive techniques that are associated with lower recurrence rates and fewer complications. In this case, a woman in her 90s complained of persistent fecal incontinence, dysuria, anal pain, and difficulty in walking. She was diagnosed with a complete rectal prolapse of 15 cm and was treated with colonoscopy‐assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy. The sigmoid colon was tractioned colonoscopically and fixed to the abdominal wall to immobilize the prolapsed rectum. The patient developed no complications intraoperatively and postoperatively and experienced no recurrence during a 5‐year postoperative period. This report documents the first case wherein colonoscopy‐assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy was used successfully to correct a complete rectal prolapse.

A novel method for treating complete rectal prolapse with laparoscopic sigmoidopexy to the abdominal wall: A case report

Introduction

Presentation of case

Discussion

Conclusion

•

This is the first reported case of abdominal wall fixation for rectal prolapse.

•

Laparoscopic fixation of the abdominal wall with minimal dissection was performed.

•

Repair is possible without the use of artificial material.

•

The procedure requires only five sutures to fix.

•

This method may be a useful option for patients who can undergo general anaesthesia.

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.

Mid-term functional and quality of life outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: multicenter comparative matched-pair analyses

Background

The aim of this study was to compare patients’ mid-term functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR).

Methods

The data of consecutive female patients who underwent minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for external or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse at 3 hospitals in Finland between January 2011 and December 2016 were retrospectively collected. Patients were matched by age and diagnosis at a 1:1 ratio. A disease-related symptom questionnaire was sent to all living patients at follow-up in July 2018.

Results

After a total of 401 patients (RVMR, n = 187; LVMR, n = 214) were matched, 152 patients in each group were included in the final analyses. The median follow-up times were 3.3 (range 1.6–7.4) years and 3.0 (range 1.6–7.6) years for the RVMR and LVMR groups, respectively. The postoperative QoL measures did not differ between the groups. Compared with the LVMR group, the RVMR group had lower postoperative Wexner Incontinence Score (median 5 vs. median 8; p < 0.001), experienced significant ongoing incontinence symptoms less often (30.6% vs. 49.0%; p < 0.001) and reported less postoperative faecal incontinence discomfort evaluated with the visual analogue scale (median 11 vs. median 39; p = 0.005). RVMR patients had a shorter hospital stay (2.2 days vs. 3.8 days; p < 0.001) but experienced more frequent de novo pelvic pain (31.8% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

RVMR and LVMR patients had equal functional and QoL outcomes. Those who underwent RVMR had lower mid-term anal incontinence symptom scores but suffered more frequent de novo pelvic pain.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10151-021-02563-z.

Ninety-day morbidity of robot-assisted redo surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse, mesh erosion and pelvic pain: lessons learned from 9 years' experience in a tertiary referral centre

AIM

With increasing follow-up of patients treated with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) more redo surgery can be expected for recurrent rectal prolapse, mesh erosion and pelvic pain. The aim of this study is to evaluate the 90-day morbidity of robot-assisted redo interventions.

METHOD

All robot-assisted redo interventions after primary transabdominal repair of rectal prolapse between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively analysed and compared with the results for patients after primary robot-assisted VMR during the same period. The redo interventions were divided into groups based on the indication for surgery (recurrent prolapse, mesh erosion, pelvic pain). Intraoperative complications and 90-day postoperative morbidity were evaluated.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifty nine patients were treated with primary VMR, with 73 for recurrent rectal prolapse, 12 for mesh erosion and 14 for pelvic pain. Complications of recurrent prolapse surgeries were comparable to those of primary VMR (p > 0.05). More intraoperative complications, minor and major complications were seen in redo surgery for erosion compared with primary VMR (23% vs. 3%, p = 0.01; 31% vs. 11%, p = 0.055; and 38% vs. 1%, p < 0.01 respectively). The frequency of intraoperative complications after redo surgery for pelvic pain was 7% with minor and major morbidity rates of 14% and 7% (p > 0.05). Half of the patients with pelvic pain experienced relief of their symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Redo surgery for management of recurrent rectal prolapse is safe. Redo surgery for mesh erosion is associated with high morbidity rates. Redo surgery for pelvic pain can have major complications and is only effective in half of the cases.

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.

Ventral Prosthesis Rectopexy for obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Obstructed Defecation Syndrome (ODS) is a rather complex entity concerning mainly females and causing primarily constipation. Surgical treatment in the form of Ventral Prosthesis Rectopexy (VPR) has been proposed and seems to have the best outcomes. However, the selection criteria of patients to undergo this kind of operation are not clear and the reported outcomes are mainly short-term and data on long-term outcomes is scarce. This study assesses new evidence on the efficacy of VPR for the treatment of ODS, specifically focusing on inclusion criteria for surgery and the long-term outcomes. A search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid and Cochrane databases on all studies reporting on VPR for ODS from 2000 to March 2020. No language restrictions were made. All studies on VPR were reviewed systematically. The main outcomes were intra-operative complications, conversion, procedure duration, short-term mortality and morbidity, length of stay, faecal incontinence and constipation, quality of life (QoL) score and patient satisfaction. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by three observers. Fourteen studies including 963 patients were eligible for analysis. The immediate postoperative morbidity rate was 8.9%. A significant improvement in constipation symptoms was observed in the 12-month postoperative period for ODS (p < 0.0001). Current evidence shows that VPR offers symptomatic relief to the majority of patients with ODS, improving both constipation-like symptoms and faecal incontinence for at least 1-2 years postoperatively. Some studies report on functional results after longer follow-up, showing sustainable improvement, although in a lesser extent.

Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy Versus Transvaginal Posterior Colporrhaphy in Management of Anterior Rectocele

BACKGROUND

Management of rectocele is challenging. Treatment usually starts with conservative measures and may involve surgical intervention in non-responding patients. We compared the outcomes of transvaginal posterior colporrhaphy (PC) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in treatment of anterior rectocele.

METHODS

Patients with anterior rectocele who underwent PC or LVMR were functionally assessed using Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) was used for clinical assessment, defecography for anatomic assessment, and manometry for physiologic assessment. In addition, quality of life was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 231 female patients with a mean age of 39 years were included to the study. One hundred fifty-nine underwent PC and 72 underwent LVMR. The LVMR group showed significantly a better functional outcome as compared with the PC group (p < 0.0001). The mean of CCCS at 1 year after LVMR was 6 ± 2.3 vs 9.2 ± 1.2 after PC. The mean of PISQ-12 at 1 year after LVMR was 39.3 ± 2.8 vs 35.8 ± 2.2 after PC. LVMR showed better anatomic correction by defecography, had significantly higher quality of life scores, and had a longer operative time as compared with PC, yet with comparable incidence of complications.

CONCLUSION

PC and LVMR are both effective treatment options for treatment of rectocele. LVMR was associated with better anatomic correction and greater improvement in constipation, sexual symptoms, and quality of life compared with PC. Although LVMR had a longer operation time than PC, the complication rate of the two procedures was comparable.

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.

Long term outcomes of laparoscopic sacro/colpo-hysteropexy with and without rectopexy for the treatment of prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH), sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and ventral rectopexy (LVR) with mesh are advocated for surgical treatment of pelvic and rectal prolapse. Our study aims at showing the feasibility of concomitant laparoscopic prolapse repair by comparing perioperative and long-term outcomes of LSH or LSC with and without LVR.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study carried out on 348 women operated on between July 2009 and July 2019. Patients were divided into four groups: (1) LSH only, (2) LSC only, (3) LSH + LVR and (4) LSC + LVR. POP-Q scores and satisfaction questionnaires were recorded at baseline and then annually. Outcomes were defined as subjective failure (vaginal/rectal prolapse symptoms), objective failure (prolapse to/beyond the hymen, full thickness rectal prolapse) or retreatment for prolapse. Complications were collected and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-eight women underwent laparoscopic repair for pelvic and rectal prolapse (219, 44, 66 and 19 in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 (4-174) months. Success rate for both rectal and pelvic prolapse was 90.2%. Recurrence rates were not significantly different between the groups (12.3%, 6.8%, 9.1% and 10.5% for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Significant improvement was noticed in satisfaction questionnaires in all groups. There was no difference in perioperative and late complications.

CONCLUSION

The combined laparoscopic procedure appears to be safe and efficient in treating pelvic and rectal prolapse. Appropriate patient selection and available surgical expertise should determine whether to perform these procedures combined or separately.

Evaluation of the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

BACKGROUND

The current standard treatment for external rectal prolapse and symptomatic high-grade internal rectal prolapse is surgical correction with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy using either laparoscopy or robotic assistance. This study examines the number of procedures needed to complete the learning curve for robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and reach adequate performance.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all primary RVMR from 2011 to 2019 performed in a tertiary pelvic floor clinic by two colorectal surgeons (A and B) was performed. Both surgeons had previous experience with laparoscopic rectopexy, but no robotic experience. Skin-to-skin operating times (OT) were assessed using LC-CUSUM analyses. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed using CUSUM analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 182 (surgeon A) and 91 (surgeon B) RVMRs were performed in total. There were no relevant differences in patient characteristics between the two surgeons. Median OT was 75 min (range 46-155; surgeon A) and 90 min (range 63-139; surgeon B). The learning curve regarding OT was completed after 36 procedures for surgeon A and 55 procedures for surgeon B. Both before and after completion of the learning curve, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates remained below a predefined acceptable level of performance.

CONCLUSIONS

36 to 55 procedures are required to complete the learning curve for RVMR. The implementation of robotic surgery does not inflict any additional risks on patients at the beginning of a surgeon's learning curve.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for obstructive defecation syndrome: Follow-up in the Indian population

Context:

Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) is a poorly understood cause of constipation. In selected patients not responding to conservative management, surgical options may be offered. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is another surgical option which gained popularity in the past decade.

Aim:

This study aims to identify the efficacy of LVMR in the Indian population.

Setting and Design:

It is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent LVMR from January 2015 to January 2017 at a tertiary centre in India.

Subjects and Methods:

Thirty patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patients were periodically followed for 2 years. Pre- and post-operative modified Longo's ODS scores were recorded and compared. Furthermore, other complications were noted and evaluated.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Relevant statistical tests were used to analyse the collected data.

Results:

Thirty patients (28 females, 2 males, mean age: 52.4 years) underwent LVMR for ODS due to anatomical abnormality like rectorectal intussusceptions (RRIs) (36.7%), rectocele (13.3%), or combined RRI with rectocele (50%). The mean pre-operative modified Longo's ODS score was 23.17 ± 4.82 which decreased to 2.37 ± 1.59 at the end of 6 months and 1.23 ± 1.14 and 1.57 ± 1.14 at the end of 12 months and 2 years, respectively. The mean modified Longo's ODS score showed a significant fall of 94.7% at 12-month follow-up and 93.2% fall on 2-year follow-up. The mean operative time was 115 min and the average hospital stay of patients who underwent LVMR was 3.26 days.

Conclusion:

LVMR is a safe surgical procedure with minimal complications and good functional results for ODS patients due to rectal anatomical abnormality. Further larger studies are required to decide the best treatment modality for ODS.

Redo ventral rectopexy: is it worthwhile?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely used surgical treatment for posterior pelvic organ prolapse; however, evidence of the utility of revisional surgery is lacking. Our aim was to assess the technical details, safety and outcomes of redo minimally invasive VMR for patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) recurrence or relapsed symptoms of internal rectal prolapse (IRP).

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with recurrent ERP or symptomatic IRP who underwent redo minimally invasive VMR between 2011 and 2016. The study was conducted at three hospitals in Finland. Data collected retrospectively included patient demographics, in addition to perioperative and short-term postoperative findings. At follow-up, all living patients were sent a questionnaire concerning postoperative disease-related symptoms and quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 43 redo minimally invasive VMR were performed during the study period. The indication for reoperation was recurrent ERP in 22 patients and relapsed symptoms of IRP in 21 patients. In most operations (62.8%), the previously used mesh was left in situ and a new one was placed. Ten (23.3%) patients experienced complications, including 2 (4.7%) mesh-related complications. The recurrence rate was 4.5% for ERP. Three patients out of 43 were reoperated on for various reasons. One patient required postoperative laparoscopic hematoma evacuation. Patients operated on for recurrent ERP seemed to benefit more from the reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive redo VMR appears to be a safe and effective procedure for treating posterior pelvic floor dysfunction with acceptable recurrence and reoperation rates.

Restored pelvic anatomy is preserved after laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy: MRI-based 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Our aim was to compare the long-term anatomical outcomes between robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for external or internal rectal prolapse.

METHOD

This study is a follow-up of a single-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT). Thirty patients were randomly allocated to RVMR (n = 16) or LVMR (n = 14). The primary end-point was maintenance of the restored pelvic anatomy 5 years after the operation, as assessed by magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography. Secondary outcome measures included the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measures and functional results assessed using symptom questionnaires.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (14 RVMR and 12 LVMR) completed the 5-year follow-up and were included in the study. The MRI results, POP-Q measurements and symptom-specific quality of life measures did not differ between the RVMR and LVMR groups. The MRI measurements of the total study population remained unchanged between 3 months and 5 years. In the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), the RVMR group had lower symptom scores (mean 96.0, SD 70.7) than the LVMR group (mean 160.6, SD 58.9; P = 0.004). In the subscales of pelvic organ prolapse (POPDI-6) (mean 23.2, SD 24.3 vs mean 52.4, SD 22.4; P = 0.001) and the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) (mean 38.4, SD 23.3 vs mean 58.6, SD 25.4; P = 0.009), the patients in the RVMR group had significantly better outcomes.

CONCLUSION

After VMR, the corrected anatomy was preserved. There were no clinically significant differences in anatomical results between the RVMR and LVMR procedures 5 years after surgery based on MR defaecography. However, functional outcomes were better after RMVR.

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

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

Long-term Anatomical and Functional Results of Robot-Assisted Pelvic Floor Surgery for the Management of Multicompartment Prolapse: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Long-term data on robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for the treatment of multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse are scarce. With the rising prevalence of prolapse and increasing surgical repair, it is essential to evaluate long-term results.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate long-term functional and anatomic outcomes after sacrocolporectopexy.

DESIGN

This is a prospective, observational cohort study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a teaching hospital with tertiary referral function for patients with gynecological/rectal prolapse.

PATIENTS

All patients undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy from 2011 to 2012 were included.

INTERVENTION

Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the anatomic cure rate after 1 and 4 years, defined as simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage 1 vaginal apical prolapse and no external rectal prolapse or internal rectal prolapse present. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for determination of recurrence-free intervals. Secondary outcomes were functional pelvic floor symptoms (symptoms of bulge, obstructed defecation, fecal incontinence, urogenital distress inventory) and quality of life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire).

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were included. After 12 and 48 months, the recurrence-free intervals based on Kaplan-Meier estimates were 100% and 90%. In total, there were 10 recurrences: 2 apical and 8 internal rectal prolapses. Symptoms of bulge (94%-12%; p < 0.0005), fecal incontinence (62%-32%; p < 0.0005), obstructed defecation (59%-24%; p = 0.008), and median Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores (124-5; p = 0.022) improved significantly at final follow-up. Median urogenital distress inventory scores showed improvement after 1 year (30-13; p = 0.021).

LIMITATIONS

This was an observational, single-center study with selective postoperative imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Ninety percent of patients were recurrence free 48 months after robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy. Symptoms of vaginal bulge, quality of life, constipation, and fecal incontinence improved significantly. However, a subgroup of patients showed persistent bowel complaints that underlie the complexity of multicompartment prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B265. RESULTADOS ANATÓMICOS Y FUNCIONALES A LARGO PLAZO DE LA CIRUGÍA DE PISO PÉLVICO ASISTIDA POR ROBOT EN EL TRATAMIENTO DEL PROLAPSO MULTICOMPARTIMENTAL: UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO: Los datos a largo plazo sobre la sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot para el tratamiento del prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos son escasos. Con el aumento de la prevalencia del prolapso y el aumento de la reparación quirúrgica, es esencial evaluar los resultados a largo plazo.Evaluar los resultados funcionales y anatómicos a largo plazo después de la sacrocolporectopexia.Estudio prospectivo observacional de cohorte.Hospital de enseñanza con función de referencia terciaria para pacientes con prolapso ginecológico/rectal.Todos los pacientes sometidos a sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot en 2011-2012.Sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot.El resultado primario fue la tasa de curación anatómica a uno y cuatro años, definida como etapa 1 de prolapso apical vaginal en la cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos simplificado, y sin prolapso rectal externo o prolapso rectal interno presentes. Se utilizaron curvas de Kaplan Meier para determinar los intervalos libres de recurrencia. Los resultados secundarios fueron síntomas funcionales del piso pélvico (síntomas de abultamiento, obstrucción defecatoria, incontinencia fecal, inventario de molestias urogenitales) y calidad de vida (cuestionario de impacto del piso pélvico).Se incluyeron 53 pacientes. Después de 12 y 48 meses, el intervalo libre de recurrencia basado en las estimaciones con método Kaplan Meier fue del 100% y 90%, respectivamente. En total hubo diez recurrencias: dos apicales y ocho prolapsos rectales internos. Los síntomas de abultamiento (94% a 12%; p <0.0005), incontinencia fecal (62% a 32%; p <0.0005), obstrucción defecatoria (59% a 24%; p = 0.008) y puntajes promedio del cuestionario de impacto del piso pélvico (124 a 5; p = 0.022) mejoraron significativamente en el seguimiento final. Las puntuaciones medias del inventario de molestias urogenitales mostraron una mejoría después de un año (30 a 13; p = 0.021).Estudio observacional de centro único con imagenología postoperatoria selectiva.Noventa por ciento de los pacientes estaban libres de recurrencia 48 meses después de la sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot. Los síntomas de abultamiento vaginal, la calidad de vida, el estreñimiento y la incontinencia fecal mejoraron significativamente. Sin embargo, un subgrupo de pacientes mostró molestias intestinales persistentes que subrayan a la complejidad del prolapso multicompartimental. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B265.

Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy for Obstructed Defecation: Functional Results and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is gaining wider acceptance as the preferred procedure to correct internal and external rectal prolapse with obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) and/or fecal incontinence. The aim of our study was to analyze functional outcome and quality of life (Health-Related Quality of Life) after LVR for symptomatic internal prolapse and/or rectocele with ODS.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data on LVR for internal rectal prolapse were analyzed in 50 consecutive female patients operated between January 2011 and December 2018. In all cases, we performed a LVR according to the D'Hoore technique. Patients had ODS and internal rectal prolapse (grade 3 or 4) confirmed at the defecogram study. We registered only 1 major complication that required surgical treatment (Clavien-Dindo IIIb). The median hospital stay was 4 days [interquartile range (IQR): 2 to 5 d]. Functional results were measured with the Wexner Constipation Score and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and were analyzed before surgery and after 3, 6, or 12 months.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 16.5 months (IQR: 10 to 44.25 mo), the Wexner Total Score was significantly improved in almost all items passing from 14 (IQR: 11 to 18) to 11 (IQR: 6.25 to 14.75) after surgery (P<0.0001). Incontinence was cured in 8 of 11 patients (P=0.036). Compared with the preoperative score, the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score improved, especially for physical activity, varying from 75 to 87.5 (P=0.0156). No worsening of continence status, constipation, or sexual function was observed.

CONCLUSION

LVR appears to provide a sustained improvement in Health-Related Quality of Life, constipation, and incontinence in patients with ODS without worsening constipation with low morbidity and recurrence.

Vaginal cuff perforation during robotic-assisted mesh recto-sacrocolpopexy

INTRODUCTION

We report on the management of intraoperative vaginal cuff perforation during robotic-assisted mesh recto-sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse with defecatory dysfunction.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 75-year-old woman with vaginal bulge and constipation was to undergo a joint robotic mesh recto-sacrocolpopexy. Intraoperatively, mesh was secured to the left posterior vaginal wall following dissection. Prior to contralateral suture placement, the vaginal cuff split open and exposed an end-to-end anastomotic sizer previously inserted in the vagina. Due to subsequent mesh erosion risk, we proceeded with vaginotomy closure with running and interrupted absorbable sutures, removal of mesh, direct suture rectopexy to the promontory, and enterocele defect correction by reapproximating the right and left wings of the peritoneum flaps over the rectum with running sutures. Patient reported satisfactory outcomes after 2 years.

CONCLUSION

We reviewed our experience with vaginal cuff perforation during robotic-assisted mesh recto-sacrocolpopexy prompting enterocele repair and rectopexy without mesh.

Modified perineal linear stapler resection for external rectal prolapse

Background

rectal prolapse can cause bleeding and fecal incontinence that affects the life quality of patients. The treatment of external rectal prolapse is surgical. There are many procedures (abdominal or perineal) that can be used depending on the severity of the condition and patient tolerability for operation. In this study, a simple safe procedure is used for the treatment of the rectal prolapse in old, fragile and comorbid patients who cannot withstand the major surgeries and the risk of long-duration anesthesia.

Methods

from December 2016 to July 2019, 36 elderly comorbid patients with rectal prolapse were involved in this study which is performed in the GIT surgery unit of Zagazig University Hospital. A modified linear stapler resection technique is used for the rectal prolapse. Postoperative follow up was done for one year to evaluate the functional outcome, operative time, hospital stay duration and complications.

Result

this study was conducted on 36 patients; The median age was 75 years (range 48-95). The postoperative complication rate was 11.1%. The median operative time was 25 min and 4 days for the hospital stay. Fecal incontinence improved in more than 90% of patients and constipation disappeared in 66% of total constipating patients.

Conclusion

The modified perineal linear stapler resection for external rectal prolapse is a good, easy, rapid treatment for elderly comorbid patients with good functional outcomes.

Transvaginal rectopexy using the Flex® Colorectal Drive Robotic System: a proof-of-concept approach to rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to demonstrate a proof-of-concept approach to rectopexy that would provide the durability of the transabdominal procedure through use of sacral rectopexy with the decreased morbidity of a perineal procedure. This was done by utilizing a transvaginal approach and developing the rectovaginal space to accommodate sacral rectopexy placement using the Flex^® Colorectal Drive Robotic System by Medrobotics (Medrobotics Corp., Raynham, MA, USA).

METHODS

A fresh female cadaver was acquired and placed in the high lithotomy position. The rectovaginal space was developed to accommodate the trocar of the Flex robot using blunt and sharp dissection between the posterior vaginal wall and anterior rectum. A piece of mesh was introduced into the space and using an endoscopic tacker, which was secured to the sacral promontory. The mesh was secured to the anterior rectal wall using interrupted vicryl sutures. The purse string suture was removed and the rectovaginal orifice was closed using a running vicryl suture. At the completion of the procedure, a low midline laparotomy was conducted to verify anchoring of the mesh appropriately at the sacral promontory.

RESULTS

This proof-of-concept protocol is the first description of the Flex^® Colorectal Drive being used successfully to perform a transvaginal rectopexy for rectal prolapse in a cadaver. This is also the first description of the Flex^® Colorectal Drive robot being used transvaginally.

CONCLUSIONS

This proof-of-concept approach demonstrates that transvaginal rectopexy using the Flex^® Colorectal Drive is a potential surgical option to address rectal prolapse that could provide patients the durability of a transabdominal approach with the decreased morbidity of a perineal approach. While early results are promising, additional cadaveric studies are required before this procedure can be attempted in vivo.

Impact of Suture Type on Erosion Rate After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing concern and scrutiny in the use of mesh for certain pelvic organ prolapse procedures. However, mesh erosion was often associated with sites of suture fixation of the mesh to the rectum or vagina. Thus, in response to this finding, we replaced our suture material with absorbable monofilament suture.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of mesh-related complications after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, according to the type of suture used in fixation of mesh.

DESIGN

This was retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This study was performed at a high-volume, tertiary care center. It was conducted using a prospective database including patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy over a 7-year period.

PATIENTS

A total of 495 cases were included; 296 (60%) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexies were performed using a nonabsorbable suture compared with 199 (40%) with an absorbable suture in a case-matched analysis. In addition, 151 cases of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy with nonabsorbable were matched based on age, sex, and time of follow-up, with an equal number of patients using absorbable monofilament suture.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Primary outcome was symptomatic mesh erosion after rectopexy. Secondary outcomes included other mesh-related complications and/or reoperations.

RESULTS

The erosion rate was 2% (6/495) in the nonabsorbable suture group, including 4 erosions into the rectum and 2 into the vagina. There was no erosion in the group with absorbable suture. This difference was maintained after matching: after a median follow-up of 6 (12) months, there was no erosion in the absorbable suture group versus 3.3% erosion (n = 5) in the nonabsorbable suture group (p = 0.03).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh-related complications are reduced using absorbable sutures compared with nonabsorbable sutures when performing laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic mesh without an increase in rectopexy failures. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B49. IMPACTO DEL TIPO DE SUTURA EN LA TASA DE EROSIóN DESPUéS DE LA RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL LAPAROSCóPICA CON MALLA: UN ESTUDIO DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS: Ha habido una creciente preocupación y escrutinio en el uso de la malla para ciertos procedimientos de prolapso de órganos pélvicos. Sin embargo, la erosión de la malla a menudo se asoció con sitios de fijación de sutura de la malla al recto o la vagina. Por lo tanto, en respuesta a este hallazgo, reemplazamos nuestro material de sutura con sutura de monofilamento absorbible.Comparar las tasas de complicaciones relacionadas con la malla después de la rectopexia laparoscópica de malla ventral, de acuerdo al tipo de sutura utilizada en la fijación de la malla.Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.Este estudio se realizó en un centro de atención de tercer nivel de alto volumen. Se realizó utilizando una base de datos prospectiva que incluía pacientes que se sometieron a una rectopexia de malla ventral laparoscópica durante un período de 7 años.Se incluyeron un total de 495 casos; 296 (60%) rectopexias de malla ventral laparoscópica utilizando una sutura no reabsorbible en comparación con 199 (40%) con una sutura absorbible en un análisis de casos emparejados. Además, 151 casos de rectopexia ventral laparoscópica con malla no absorbible se emparejaron según la edad, el sexo y el tiempo de seguimiento con un número igual de pacientes que usaban sutura de monofilamento absorbible.La medida de resultado primaria fue la erosión sintomática de la malla después de la rectopexia. La medida de resultado secundarias incluyeron otras complicaciones y/o reoperaciones relacionadas con la malla.La tasa de erosión fue del 2% (6/495) en el grupo de sutura no absorbible; 4 erosiones en el recto y 2 en la vagina. No hubo erosión en el grupo con sutura absorbible. Esta diferencia se mantuvo después del emparejamiento: después de una mediana de seguimiento de 6 (12) meses, no hubo erosión en el grupo de sutura absorbible versus 3.3% de erosión (n = 5) en el grupo de sutura no absorbible (p = 0.03).Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.Las complicaciones relacionadas con la malla se reducen utilizando suturas absorbibles en comparación con las suturas no absorbibles cuando se realiza la rectopexia de malla ventral laparoscópica con malla sintética, sin un aumento en los fracasos de rectopexia. Vea el Resumen del Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B49.

Perineal rectosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse-the preferred procedure for the unfit elderly patient? 10 years experience from a UK tertiary centre

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is a disease presentation with a prevalence of about 1%, mainly affecting older women. It usually presents with symptoms of rectal mass, rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence or constipation, with patients frequently feeling socially isolated as a result. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy is associated with lesser morbidity and mortality than the abdominal procedure, but with a much higher recurrence rate. Therefore, this technique is mainly suitable for the frail elderly patient. Specific outcomes in an elderly population have been described in only a few studies. We evaluated the morbidity, mortality, recurrence rate and functional results after this procedure related to age.

METHODS

All patients who underwent a perineal rectosigmoidectomy over a 10-year period in two tertiary referral centers were included in the study. American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) grade, pre- and postoperative symptoms, pathology-reported post-fixation specimen length, length of in-patient stay, 30-day morbidity/mortality, and recurrence were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients underwent a perineal rectosigmoidectomy. Forty-three (95%) were female, with a median age of 82.0 years (IQR 70.5-86.5), ASA grade III and median follow-up of 20 months (range 8.5-45.5 months). Half of the cohort was over 80 years old. Significant symptomatic relief was achieved, predominantly the resolution of rectal mass (8.9% vs. 60.0% preoperatively), fecal incontinence (15.6% vs. 46.7%) and constipation (4.4% vs. 26.7%). The median length of stay was 6 days, while morbidity occurred in 14 patients (31.1%) and recurrence occurred in 6 patients (13%). There were no deaths within 30 days of the procedure and outcomes were comparable in the < 80 and ≥ 80 age group.

CONCLUSIONS

Perineal rectosigmoidectomy is safe for older patients with greater comorbidities resulting in good functional results and is associated with low morbidity and mortality.

A prospective pilot study on MRI visibility of iron oxide-impregnated polyvinylidene fluoride mesh after ventral rectopexy

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides excellent information about pelvic anatomy after ventral rectopexy, but the position of the conventional mesh is not seen constantly. Iron oxide-impregnated polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) meshes are proven to have MRI visibility in hernia or vaginal reconstructive surgery. This prospective pilot study was designed to assess the visualization, position, and shape of the magnetic resonance (MR)–visible synthetic pelvic mesh used in minimally invasive ventral rectopexy.

Methods

Eight patients with pelvic organ prolapse were recruited for laparoscopic (LVMR) or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) with a synthetic MR–visible PVDF mesh. A follow-up visit was scheduled at 3 months after surgery. MR imaging was performed to evaluate the position and dimensions of the mesh and anatomical result. The visibility of the mesh in each sequence was assessed subjectively.

Results

The visibility of the mesh was best on T1-weighted flash images. The mesh was also well visualized on T2-weighted sagittal images. T2-weighted images, in general, provided best visualization of the surrounding anatomical structures and enabled assessment of the mesh fixation.

Conclusions

T2 sagittal and T1-weighted flash images provide the best information about the position and integrity of the iron oxide-impregnated PVDF mesh after LVMR or RVMR with a short examination time.

Robotic vs. laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is a treatment with promising results in external rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, and rectocele. Because of the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery and the technical advantage it provides, we examined the potential role and place of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, and other databases were searched, by two independent reviewers, to identify studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. The primary outcome was the rate of unplanned conversion to open. The secondary outcomes were morbidity, length of hospital stay and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

Five studies (4% male, n = 259) met the inclusion criteria. All 5 studies reported on conversion rate and showed no significant difference between the conversion rate of robotic and laparoscopic groups [OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.09-3.77)]. Robotic surgery was also similar to laparoscopic surgery for both morbidity [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.34-1.48)] and recurrence rate [OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-1.75)]. Operative time was longer in the robotic group with a MWD of 22.88 minutes (CI 5.73-40.04, p < 0.0007). There was a statistically significant reduction in length of stay with robotic surgery [mean difference - 0.36 days (95% CI - 0.66 to - 0.07)].

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows that robotic-assisted ventral rectopexy requires longer operative time with no significant added benefit over laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. The conversion rate was low in both groups and the trends to benefit did not reach statistical significance. More studies are required to clarify whether the potential technical advantage of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy translates to an improvement in clinical outcome.

Short term outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse: case series

Objectives

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is a technique gaining more recognition for the management of pelvic floor disorders, such as external rectal prolapse (ERP), high grade internal rectal prolapse (IRP) and rectocele. LVMR also allows correction of coexisted pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and functional outcome of LVMR for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse.

Material and Methods

All patients who underwent LVMR from February 2014 to October 2017 were included into the study. The patients were evaluated preoperatively and three months postoperatively. Surgical complications and functional results in terms of fecal incontinence (measured with the Wexner Incontinence Score= WIS) and constipation (measured with the Wexner Constipation Score= WCS) were analyzed.

Results

Thirty (4 males) patients underwent LVMR. Seventeen (56.6%) patients had complex pelvic organ prolapse according to MRI findings. Median operative time and postoperative stay were 110 minutes and 4 days, respectively. No mesh-related complication and recurrence were observed. Before surgery, 21 (70%) patients had complained about symptoms of obstructed defecation. WCS decreased significantly from median 19 to 6 (p <0.001). Preoperative median WIS of 9 patients was 14 and went down to 6 postoperatively (p= 0.008). WCS significantly improved after LVMR in patients with symptomatic rectocele combined with enterocele or sigmoidocele (p= 0.005), and significant improvement was also observed in patients with symptomatic rectocele combined with gynecologic organ prolapse, preoperative median WCS was 18 and the postoperative value fell to 8 (p= 0.005).

Conclusion

LVMR is an effective surgical option for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse with short-term follow-up.

Long-term outcomes of robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays in Europe, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is the gold standard treatment of external rectal prolapse (ERP). The benefits of robot ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) are not clearly defined. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the long-term results of RVMR. The secondary objective was to determine predictive factors of recurrence.

DESIGN

Monocentric, retrospective study. Data, both pre-operative and peri-operative, were collected, and follow-up data were assessed prospectively by a telephone questionnaire. The study was performed in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Between August 2007 and August 2017, we evaluate all consecutive patients who underwent RVMR for ERP by three different surgeons. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate perceived by patients. Secondary outcome were functional results based on Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom score for constipation and Wexner score for incontinence, compared before and after surgery.

RESULTS

During the study period 96 patients (86 women) underwent RVMR. The mean age was 62.3 years (range 16-90). Twelve patients had a history of ERP repair. Sixty-nine patients were analyzed for long-term outcomes with a mean follow-up of 37 months (range 2.3-92 months). Recurrence rate was 12.5%. After surgery, constipation was significantly reduced: 44 patients were constipated before surgery versus 23 after surgery. Six patients described de novo constipation (6.25%). Fecal incontinence was significantly reduced: 59 patients were incontinent before surgery versus 14 after surgery. No predictive factor for recurrence was identified after multivariate analysis. No mesh related complications were related.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, RVMR presents good long-term functional result and a recurrence rate similar to LVMR as published in the literature. The rate of mesh related complications seems lower.

Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial

Background

The aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome.

Methods

A prospective randomized study was conducted on patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for internal or external rectal prolapse at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, recruited in February–May 2012. The primary outcomes were health care costs from the hospital perspective and HRQoL measured by the 15D-instrument. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification method and functional outcome by symptom questionnaires at 24 months follow-up.

Results

There were 30 females (mean age 62.5 years, SD 11.2), 16 in the RVMR group and 14 in the LVMR group. The surgery-related costs of the RVMR were 1.5 times higher than the cost of the LVMR. At 3 months the changes in HRQoL were ‘much better’ (RVMR) and ‘slightly better’ (LVMR) but declined in both groups at 2 years (RVMR vs. LVMR, p > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness was poor at 2 years for both techniques, but if the outcomes were assumed to last for 5 years, it improved significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the RVMR compared to LVMR was €39,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 2 years and improved to €16,707/QALYs at 5 years. Posterior wall anatomy was restored similarly in both groups. The subjective satisfaction rate was 87% in the RVMR group and 69% in the LVMR group (p = 0.83).

Conclusions

Although more expensive than LVMR in the short term, RVMR is cost-effective in long-term. The minimally invasive VMR improves pelvic floor function, sexual function and restores posterior compartment anatomy. The effect on HRQoL is minor, with no differences between techniques.

Resection Rectopexy is Still an Acceptable Operation for Rectal Prolapse

The aim of this study was to compare resection rectopexy (RR) with ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). This institutional review board–approved retrospective study compared patients with rectal prolapse, who underwent RR or VMR from 2009 to 2016. The primary end point was the comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence rates. Seventy-nine RR and 108 VMR patients qualified. Using propensity score matching, the two groups were not significantly different (P = 0.818). There were no differences regarding gender (female 103 vs 72; P = 0.4) and age (59.3 vs 53.9; P = 0.054). Patients in the VMR group had a greater body mass index (25.5 vs 22.9; P = 0.001) and poorer physical status (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3 57.4% vs 41.8%; P = 0.04). The VMR group had more: robotic approaches (69.4% vs 8.9%; P < 0.001), concomitant urogynecological procedures (63 vs 19; P < 0.001), and longer operative time (269 vs 206 minutes; P < 0.001) but a reduced length of stay (2 vs 5 days; P < 0.001). The median follow-up (16 vs 26 months; P = 0.125) and the median time of recurrence (14 vs 38 months; P = 0.163) were similar. No differences were observed for complications or recurrence (10.2% vs 10.1%; P = 0.43). We failed to identify superiority based on surgical technique.

Does Ventral Rectopexy Improve Pelvic Floor Function in the Long Term?

BACKGROUND

Information is needed on long-term functional results, sequelas, and outcome predictors for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term function postventral rectopexy in patients with external rectal prolapse or internal rectal prolapse in a large cohort and to identify the possible effects of patient-related factors and operative technical details on patient-reported outcomes.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review with a cross-sectional questionnaire study.

SETTINGS

Data were collated from prospectively collected registries in 2 university and 2 central hospitals in Finland.

PATIENTS

All 508 consecutive patients treated with ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse in 2005 to 2013 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

A questionnaire concerning disease-related symptoms and effect on quality of life was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Defecatory function measured by the Wexner score, the obstructive defecation score, and subjective symptom and quality-of-life evaluation using the visual analog scale were included. The effects of patient-related factors and operative technical details were assessed using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The questionnaire response rate was 70.7% (330/467 living patients) with a median follow-up time of 44 months. The mean Wexner scores were 7.0 (SD = 6.1) and 6.9 (SD = 5.6), and the mean obstructive defecation scores were 9.7 (SD = 7.6) and 12.3 (SD = 8.0) for patients presenting with external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse. Subjective symptom relief was experienced by 76% and reported more often by patients with external rectal prolapse than with internal rectal prolapse (86% vs 68%; p < 0.001). Complications occurred in 11.4% of patients, and the recurrence rate for rectal prolapse was 7.1%.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its lack of preoperative functional data and suboptimal questionnaire response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventral mesh rectopexy effectively treats posterior pelvic floor dysfunction with a low complication rate and an acceptable recurrence rate. Patients with external rectal prolapse benefit more from the operation than those with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A479.