Laparoscopic nonresectional suture rectopexy in the management of full-thickness rectal prolapse: substantive retrospective series

Strangulated rectal prolapse in adult: Altemeier cure about two cases and literature review

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Rectal prolapse is the protrusion of the rectum through the anus. It is a rare condition in young adults. Strangulation is rare but it's a serious complication imposing emergency surgery. Altemeier's recto-sigmoidectomy seems to be an appropriate surgical method for strangulation. The aim of our work was to evaluate this technique in two cases of strangulated rectal prolapse in young adults.

CASE PRESENTATION

This report is of two men aged 37 and 29. They were seen for the management of irreducible rectal prolapses. They both men gave a long history of constipation and rectal prolapse since childhood. The physical examination found complete rectal prolapse of 13 cm and 15 cm in length respectively. One person had necrosis of the rectal mucosa. The manual reduction failed, why perineal recto-sigmoidectomy was performed. Postoperative course was uneventful. After 24 months follow-up, there was no disorder of anal continence or recurrence.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Strangulated rectal prolapse is rare. This makes consensus in treatment difficult. The risk of necrosis explains the need for surgical excision of the rectum.

CONCLUSION

Altemeier's technique is a good procedure for the management of strangulated rectal prolapse.

Surgical Techniques for Rectal Prolapse

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

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.

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.

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.

Consensus Statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse, rectal procidentia, "complete" prolapse or "third-degree" prolapse is the full-thickness prolapse of the rectal wall through the anal canal and has a significant impact on quality of life. The incidence of rectal prolapse has been estimated to be approximately 2.5 per 100,000 inhabitants with a clear predominance among elderly women. The aim of this consensus statement was to provide evidence-based data to allow an individualized and appropriate management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse. The strategy used to search for evidence was based on application of electronic sources such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Review Library, CINAHL and EMBASE. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Gastroenterology's Chronic Constipation Task Force. Five evidence levels were defined. The recommendations were graded A, B, and C.

Recurrence of Rectal Prolapse After Surgical Repair in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is prevalent among women with rectal prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether clinically significant pelvic organ prolapse impacts rectal prolapse recurrence after surgical repair.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort.

SETTING

This study was performed at a single managed-care institution.

PATIENTS

Consecutive women undergoing rectal prolapse repair between 2008 and 2016 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

There were no interventions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Full-thickness rectal prolapse recurrence was compared between 4 groups: abdominal repair without pelvic organ prolapse (AR-POP); abdominal repair with pelvic organ prolapse (AR+POP); perineal repair without pelvic organ prolapse PR-POP; and perineal repair with pelvic organ prolapse (PR+POP). Recurrence-free period and hazard of recurrence were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. To identify potential confounding risk factors for rectal prolapse recurrence, the characteristics of subjects with/without recurrence were compared with univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, pelvic organ prolapse was present in 33% of 112 women and was more prevalent among subjects with rectal prolapse recurrence (52.4% vs 28.6%, p = 0.04). Median follow-up was 42.5 months; rectal prolapse recurrence occurred in 18.8% at a median of 9 months. The rate of recurrence and the recurrence-free period differed significantly between groups: AR-POP 3.8%, 95.7 months; AR+POP 13.0%, 86.9 months; PR-POP 34.8%, 42.1 months; PR+POP 57.1%, 23.7 months (p < 0.001). Compared with AR-POP the HR (95% CI) of rectal prolapse recurrence was 3.1 (0.5-18.5) for AR+POP; 14.7 (3.0-72.9) for PR-POP and 31.1 (6.2-154.5) for PR+POP. Compared with AR+POP, PR+POP had a shorter recurrence-free period (p < 0.001) and a higher hazard of recurrence (HR, 10.2; 95% CI, 2.1-49.3).

LIMITATIONS

The retrospective design was a limitation of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic organ prolapse was associated with a higher rectal prolapse recurrence rate and earlier recurrence in women undergoing perineal, but not abdominal, repairs. Multidisciplinary evaluation can facilitate individualized management of women with rectal prolapse. Abdominal repair should be considered in women with concomitant rectal and pelvic organ prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A513.

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

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

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

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

Primary and repeated perineal stapled prolapse resection

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of the outcome after perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSPR) have included a limited number of patients with a short follow-up and high recurrence rates. The present study was designed to assess the initial results, complications, recurrence rate, and outcomes up to 4 years after PSPR, as well as the need for a repeated procedure.

METHODS

Fifty-four consecutive patients with rectal prolapse (mean age 77.2 years, range 46-93 years; n = 3 men) were selected for PSPR between May 2009 and February 2015. Prolapse length was measured at baseline and after surgery. Patients were asked to grade intensity of symptoms as a satisfaction score of 1-10, 10 representing being symptom-free.

RESULTS

The mean operation time was 45.3 min (SD = 17.5, range 25-95 min). The mean rectal prolapse length was reduced significantly from 9.5 cm (SD = 5.0, range 4-30 cm) to 1.2 cm (SD = 2.6, range 0-10 cm; p < 0.0001). Bleeding requiring surgical intervention occurred in two patients (3.7%). Postoperative satisfaction score increased from a mean of 2.2 (SD = 0.9) to a mean of 6.4 (SD = 2.8, p ≤ 0.0001). After a mean follow-up of 13.4 months (SD = 14.1), six patients with recurrence underwent a new PSPR and five patients underwent colostomy, mainly because of incontinence, resulting in a recurrence rate of 20.4%. There were no complications after redo PSPR, and after a median of 10-month follow-up (range 6-37), there were no recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

PSPR is a rather new surgical procedure for external rectal prolapse. Immediate complications are few and not serious. Although recurrences can be treated with a second PSPR, the operation may only be the best option for old and fragile patients with comorbidities and a short life expectancy.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and pelvic floor disorders

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

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

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

Risk factors and clinical characteristics of rectal prolapse in young patients

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is a relatively common condition in children and elderly patients but uncommon in young adults less than 30 years old. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors and characteristics of rectal prolapse in this group of young patients and determine surgical outcome.

METHODS

Adult patients younger than 30 years old with rectal prolapse treated surgically between September 1994 and September 2012 were identified from an IRB-approved database. Demographics, risk factors, associated conditions, clinical characteristics, surgical management and follow-up were recorded.

RESULTS

Forty-four (females 32) patients were identified with a mean age of 23 years old. Eighteen (41%) had chronic psychiatric diseases requiring treatment and these patients experienced significantly more constipation than non-psychiatric patients (83% vs. 50%; P=0.024). Thirteen (30%) patients had previous pelvic surgery. The most common symptom at presentation was a prolapsed rectum in 40 (91%) and hematochezia in 24 (55%). Twenty-four (55%) underwent a laparoscopic rectopexy, 14 (32%) open abdominal repair, and 6 (14%) had perineal surgery. The most common procedure was resection rectopexy in 21 (48%; 7 open; 14 laparoscopic). At a median follow-up of 11 (range 1-165) months, 6 patients (14%) developed a recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication induced constipation in psychiatric patients and possible pelvic floor weakness in patients with previous pelvic surgery may be contributing factors to rectal prolapse in this group of patients.

Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Will it be the Gold Standard?

A review of the current literature is presented regarding the surgical management of full thickness rectal prolapse, comparing laparoscopic rectopexy with open abdominal operations and perineal procedures. Outcome measures include length of stay, short- and long-term outcomes and financial burdens. Current evidence suggests that laparoscopic rectopexy as treatment for full thickness rectal prolapse is a safe alternative to the other options.

Laparoscopy for pelvic floor disorders

Surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders has significantly evolved during the last decade, with increasing understanding of anatomy, pathophysiology and the minimally-invasive 'revolution' of laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic pelvic floor repair requires a thorough knowledge of pelvic floor anatomy and its supportive components before repair of defective anatomy is possible. Several surgical procedures have been introduced and applied to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. Transabdominal procedures include a variety of rectopexies with the use of sutures or prosthesis and with or without resection of redundant sigmoid colon. Unfortunately there is lack of one generally accepted standard treatment technique. This article will focus on recent advances in the management of pelvic floor disorders affecting defecation, with a brief overview of contemporary concepts in pelvic floor anatomy and different laparoscopic treatment options.

Rectal prolapse and intussusception

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

Day-case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: an achievable reality

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) is a non-resectional technique for selected patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome. Despite its challenges, LVR can be performed with relatively minimal patient trauma thus creating the potential for same-day discharge. Our aim was to assess the safety of day-case LVR and identify factors associated with same-day discharge.

METHOD

Data were prospectively collected on all patients (n = 120) from June 2008 to October 2011. Variables included demographics, perioperative details and postoperative course. Primary outcome was length of stay and secondary outcome was symptom improvement at the latest outpatient follow-up. Patients discharged the same day after LVR were compared with those who stayed overnight or longer.

RESULTS

Indications included rectocele and internal prolapse (47%), full-thickness rectal prolapse (44%) and other (9%). Mean operative time was 97 min, same-day discharge occurred with 23% (n = 27) and 67% (n = 80) were discharged on postoperative day 1. In terms of complications, 89% had none, 8% minor and 3% major, including one 24-h readmission for pain. Logistic regression identified younger age (P = 0.054) and private insurance status (P < 0.001) as being significantly associated with same-day discharge. Although surgical indication (P < 0.001), no prior hysterectomy (P = 0.012) and use of biological mesh (P = 0.012) had significant association they were probably confounded by age.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients with rectal prolapse or obstructed defaecation, same-day discharge after LVR is feasible and safe. Our analysis identified quicker discharge in the private system with younger patients. Nevertheless, in unselected patients 90% were discharged by the first operative day.

Rectal prolapse

Optimal management of rectal prolapse requires multiple clinical considerations with respect to treatment options, particularly for surgeons who must counsel and give realistic expectations to rectal prolapse patients. Rectal prolapse outcomes are good with respect to recurrence. Although posterior rectopexy remains most popular in the United States, increasingly surgeons perform ventral rectopexy to repair rectal prolapse. Functional outcomes vary and are fair after rectal prolapse repair. Although incarceration with rectal prolapse is rare, it is potentially life threatening and requires immediate and effective measures to adequately address in the acute setting.

Results in the long-term course after stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR)

PURPOSE

Stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) has recently been recommended for patients with obstructed defecation caused by rectocele and rectal wall intussusception. Our study investigates the long-term results and predictive factors for outcome.

METHODS

Between November 2002 and February 2007, 80 patients (69 females) were operated on using the STARR procedure and included in the following study. Symptoms were defined according to the ROME II criteria. Preoperative assessment included clinical examination, colonoscopy, video defecography, and dynamic MRI. Preoperatively and during follow-up visits, we evaluated the Cleveland Constipation Score (CCS) to rate the severity of outlet obstruction and the Wexner Incontinence Score to rate anal incontinence. Patients were asked to judge the outcome of the operation as improved or poor/dissatisfied. We performed a univariate analysis for 11 patient- and disease-related factors to detect an association with outcome.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 39 months (range 20-78). Major postoperative complications (one staple line insufficiency, one urosepsis, one prolonged urinary dysfunction with indwelling catheter) were found in 3.8%. The result after STARR procedure was a success in the long-term follow-up in 62 patients (77.5%), although the improvement did not persist in 15 patients (18.7%). The mean value of the CCS decreased significantly from 9.3 before surgery to 4.6 after 2 years and increased again slightly to 6.5 after 4-6 years. The Median Wexner Incontinence Score was 3.3 at baseline, but rose significantly to 6.0. However, a third of patients who reported deteriorated continence developed the symptoms 1-4 years after surgery. Of the factors investigated for the prediction of outcome, we could only identify the number of pelvic floor changes in defecography or dynamic MRI as being associated with the success of the operation.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that STARR is a safe procedure. A significant improvement of symptoms is to be expected, but this improvement may deteriorate with time. Patients' satisfaction is also associated with the occurrence of urge to defecate or incontinence. It remains difficult to predict outcome.