Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of the predictors for recurrence

The Predictive Risk Factor of Postoperative Recurrence Following Altemeier's and Delorme's Procedures for Full-thickness Rectal Prolapse: An Analysis of 127 Japanese Patients in a Single Institution

Objectives

We aimed to identify risk factors for postoperative recurrence (PR) after Altemeier's and Delorme's procedures for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP).

Methods

We enrolled 127 patients who underwent Altemeier's and Delorme's procedures for FTRP between April 2008 and September 2021. We divided the 127 patients into recurrence and non-recurrence groups and conducted univariate and multivariate analyses. We used six independent variables: age, body mass index (BMI), history of surgical repair for FTRP, coexistence of prolapse in other organs, poor fixation of the rectum on defecography before surgery, length of the prolapsed rectum, and type of surgical procedure (Altemeier's or Delorme's procedures).

Results

PR developed in 51 (40.1%) patients during a mean follow-up period of 453 (range, 9-3616) days. Comparing the recurrence group (n=51) with the non-recurrence group (n=76), significant difference was observed regarding the coexistence of prolapse in other organs (p=0.017) in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, significant differences were observed in BMI (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.030-1.350, p=0.020), coexistence of prolapse in other organs (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.200-9.500, p=0.021), length of the prolapsed rectum (OR 1.030, 95% CI 1.010-1.060, p=0.015), poor fixity of the rectum on defecography (OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.129-0.852, p=0.022), and surgical procedures (OR 0.192, 95% CI 0.064-0.573, p=0.003).

Conclusions

The study suggested that increasing BMI, coexistence of prolapse in other organs, length of the prolapsed rectum, poor fixation of the rectum on defecography before surgery, and types of surgical procedure might be risk factors of PR after perineal surgery for FTRP.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

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.

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

This was an interventional cadaver study.

SETTING

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

PATIENTS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the moderate number of cadavers.

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Trends in the surgical management of rectal prolapse: An Asian experience

BACKGROUND

Posterior compartment pelvic floor prolapse (PCPFP) leads to anatomical distortion and functional impairment. Definitive management involves surgery. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) has gained increasing popularity in the West as it emerges as a durable approach. Existing literature and evidence on safety and efficacy of PCPFP surgery in the Asian population remains sparse. Our study aims to review our institution's experience in surgery for PCPFP.

METHODS

All cases of PCPFP surgery in Singapore General Hospital between 2014 to 2019 were studied.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients had surgery performed for PCPFP, with the majority (83%) in the last 3 years. Median age was 63 years and 92% were female. Most patients (64%) had obstructive defecation symptoms, while the remaining had fecal incontinence, rectal bleeding, or anal discomfort. Main anatomical indication for surgery was external rectal prolapse (48%). Other indications were rectocele and/or rectal intussusception. The majority (66%) had abdominal rectopexy, while 28 underwent Delorme's procedure. Forty-five of the 50 VMRs were minimally invasive. Patients undergoing rectopexy were observed to be younger. Median length of stay was 3 days. Nine patients had early operative complications of which ileus was most common. Median length of follow-up was 12 months. The majority (93%) had initial symptom satisfaction. Eleven patients had anatomical recurrence with a median length of 9 months to development. There was no significant difference in outcomes between abdominal vs perineal approach, or laparoscopic vs robotic VMR.

CONCLUSION

Surgery for PCPFP has gained acceptance in our Asian institution with good symptom improvement, alongside low morbidity and recurrence.

A comparative study on the surgical options for male rectal prolapse

Purpose:

Rectal prolapse is known to be a rare condition in males compared to females. This study aimed to analyse the frequency of male rectal prolapse and compare the results of different surgical approaches performed at a single centre.

Patients and Methods:

The authors included patients who underwent surgical treatment for rectal prolapse from March 2016 to February 2021. The proportion of males, mean age and recurrence rates were calculated. Patients were divided into two groups, transanal approach and laparoscopic abdominal approach group, to identify the para-operative parameters including functional tests.

Results:

A total of 56 males, comprising 23.7% (56/236) of all patients. The mean age was 60.8 years, with a recurrence rate of 7 cases (12.5%) during 7.2 months of follow-up. Forty patients underwent transanal procedures, and fifteen underwent laparoscopic abdominal procedures. The mean operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (transanal vs. abdominal, 57.5 vs. 70.6 min, P < 0.003), and intra-operative bleeding was greater in the transanal group (12.4 vs. 3.4 ml, P < 0.001). Full-layer prolapse (36.8 vs. 81.2% P = 0.003) and longer length (5.6 vs. 7.8 cm, P = 0.048) were more common in laparoscopic group. Time to feeding resumption was shorter after the transanal group (1.2 vs. 1.7 days, P = 0.028). There was no difference between the groups in terms of post-operative complications and recurrence rates. Both Wexner's constipation and incontinence scores showed significant improvement postoperatively.

Conclusion:

The frequency of male rectal prolapse was 23.7%, and perioperative factors differed between transanal and abdominal approaches, but recurrence rates and functional test results did not differ significantly.

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.

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Management of Benign Anorectal Disorders

Benign anorectal disorders of structure and function are common in clinical practice. These guidelines summarize the preferred approach to the evaluation and management of defecation disorders, proctalgia syndromes, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, and fecal incontinence in adults and represent the official practice recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. The scientific evidence for these guidelines was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. When the evidence was not appropriate for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, we used expert consensus to develop key concept statements. These guidelines should be considered as preferred but are not the only approaches to these conditions.

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

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

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

Objective:

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

Material and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Laparoscopic approach to recurrence following multiple surgeries for external rectal prolapse: a case report

Introduction

The optimal procedure for recurrent external rectal prolapse remains unclear, particularly in laparoscopic approach. In addition, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is sometimes concomitant with rectal prolapse. We present a case who underwent laparoscopic procedure for the recurrence of full-thickness external rectal prolapse coexisting POP.

Case presentation

An 81-year-old parous female had a 10-cm full-thickness external rectal prolapse following the two operations: the first was perineal recto-sigmoidectomy and the second was laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. Imaging study revealed that the recurrent rectal prolapse was concomitant with both cystocele and exposed vagina, what we call POP. We planned and successfully performed laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) using self-cut meshes without any perioperative complication.

Conclusion

This is the first report of LVMR and LSC for recurrent rectal prolapse with POP following the perineal recto-sigmoidectomy and laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. Even for recurrent rectal prolapse with POP, our experience suggests that LVMR and LSC could be utilized.

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.

Perineal stapled prolapse resection for external rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Rectal prolapse is an uncommon but debilitating pelvic floor disorder that significantly decreases the quality of life of affected patients. Perineal stapled prolapse resection is a relatively new perineal approach that offers an promising alternative technique in the surgical management of rectal prolapse. It appears to be a simple, reproducible and efficient method. However, long-term outcomes are limited. The aims of this review are to assess the safety and effectiveness of perineal stapled prolapse resection in the management of rectal prolapse.

METHOD

A systematic review of all articles describing this approach was searched using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Included in this review were all randomized and nonrandomized prospective and retrospective studies reporting patients (aged 16 years and older) with complete rectal prolapse who underwent perineal stapled prolapse resection for the surgical treatment of the rectal prolapse.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients across 20 articles were included. There were 58 cases of recurrence out of 368 patients over a median length of follow-up of 18 months (interquartile range 12-34 months). The total weighted overall recurrence was 12%. There were 51 cases of postoperative complications in 350 cases, bleeding being the most common complication.

CONCLUSION

The recurrence rate is comparable to those of the well-established Altemeier and Delorme procedures. However, given the heterogeneity of studies and variations in lengths of follow-up, further randomized prospective studies are needed to adequately compare this technique against other procedures for complete rectal prolapse.

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.

Ventral Rectopexy

Rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition that often results in impaired quality of life. Posterior compartment defects including rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception are often associated with middle and anterior compartment prolapse and require a multicompartment approach to treatment. In recent years, ventral rectopexy, with or without sacrocolpopexy for combined middle compartment prolapse, has emerged as a safe and effective method of treatment for rectal prolapse. In this article, we aim to review the etiology of rectal prolapse and intussusception, describe the indications and workup for surgery, discuss technical aspects of ventral rectopexy alone and in combination with sacrocolpopexy, review potential surgical complications, and describe the reported outcomes of the surgery.

Laparoscopic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Suspension (Pops) Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Treatment of Rectal Prolapse: Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and pelvic organ prolapse suspension surgery (POPS) in management of patients presenting with rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Our study was a prospective cohort trial in which 120 female patients with complete rectal prolapse were included, 60 patients had had VMR and the other 60 had had POPS as a surgical management for complete rectal prolapse. Results had been compared 6 months postoperatively regarding operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, complications of surgery including recurrence of the rectal prolapse, the efficacy of each operation in treatment of rectal prolapse and associated symptoms.

RESULTS

The patients were assessed 6 months postoperatively. There was no significant statistical difference regarding hospital stay and postoperative pain. Operative time was significantly shorter in POPS in comparison with VMR (P value < 0.05). VMR showed slight improvement regarding constipation and continence scores; however, this was statistically significant. VMR showed less complications compared to POPS. Complications with rectopexy happened only with 4 patients compared to 24 patients in POPS groups, 2 cases of recurrence in rectopexy group compared to 6 cases of recurrence in POPS.

CONCLUSION

POPS is comparable to VMR in management of rectal prolapse and in improving the ODS symptoms. Thus, POPS can be used as easier, faster option to treat rectal prolapse in selected patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDING

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

None.