A new technique for suture rectopexy without resection for rectal prolapse

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.

Abdominal Approaches to Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition with a complex etiology. Symptoms are most commonly prolapse of the rectum and pain with bowel movements or straining, with worsening fecal incontinence over time due to progressive stretching of the anal sphincters. Physical findings are fairly consistent from patient to patient-most notably diastasis of the levator ani muscles, deep pouch of Douglas, redundant sigmoid colon, a mobile mesorectum, and occasionally a solitary rectal ulcer. Evaluation includes a physical exam or imaging demonstrating the prolapse, and evaluating for other causes of pelvic floor dysfunction. Multiple surgical repairs are available, but treatment must be individualized based on patient symptoms and the presence or absence of constipation or other pelvic floor disorders. Mesh repairs have shown promising results, but carry the added risks of mesh erosion, infection, and mesh migration. The optimal repair has not been clearly demonstrated at this time.

Focus on abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: meta-analysis of literature

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectopexy to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse has proven short-term benefits, but there are few long-term follow-up and functional outcome data available. Using meta-analysis techniques, this study was designed to evaluate long-term results of open and laparoscopic abdominal procedures to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. All articles on abdominal rectopexy patients with a follow-up longer than 16 months were considered. The primary end point was recurrence of rectal prolapse, and the secondary end points were improvement in incontinence and constipation. A random effect model was used to aggregate the studies reporting these outcomes, and heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

Eight comparative studies, consisting of a total of 467 patients (275 open and 192 laparoscopic), were included. Analysis of the data suggested that there is no significant difference in recurrence, incontinence and constipation improvement between laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy and open abdominal rectopexy. Considering non-comparative trials, the event rate for recurrence was similar in open and laparoscopic suture rectopexy studies and in open and laparoscopic mesh rectopexy trials. Improvement in constipation after the intervention was not statistically significant except for open mesh repair; postoperative improvement in incontinence was statistically significant after laparoscopic procedures and open mesh rectopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure, which may compare equally with the open technique with regard to recurrence, incontinence and constipation. However, large-scale randomized trials, with comparative, strong methodology, are still needed to identify outcome measures accurately.

The relationship between internal rectal prolapse and internal anal sphincter function

AIM

Faecal incontinence is commonly seen in patients with internal rectal prolapse (IRP), although the mechanism is not clear. This study assessed the relationship between IRP and anal sphincter function.

METHOD

Patients both with IRP diagnosed on proctography and those with external rectal prolapse (ERP) were identified from a prospective database generated from a tertiary referral pelvic floor clinic. The results of anorectal manometry were analysed, and the relationship between sphincter pressure and grade of prolapse was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 515 patients were identified with clinical evidence of ERP or proctographic evidence of internal and external prolapse. There were 88 with grade 5 or external prolapse [mean maximal resting pressure (MRP) 28.5 (standard error 2.1) mmHg], 156 with grade 4 prolapse [44.0 (1.8) mmHg], 153 with grade 3 prolapse [49.2 (1.6) mmHg], 88 with grade 2 prolapse [56.2 (2.1) mmHg] and 29 patients with grade 1 rectal prolapse [56.8 (4.5) mmHg]. There was a significant reduction in the mean MRP with increasing grade of prolapse from grade 2 to 5. By contrast, there was no relationship between prolapse grade and mean maximal squeeze pressure, except in patients with ERP, in whom the squeeze pressure was significantly lower compared with patients with IRP.

CONCLUSION

This is the first large-scale study to show the relationship between internal prolapse and MRP. The observation that squeeze pressure is unchanged suggests that the effect of internal prolapse on continence occurs mainly through a reduction in internal anal sphincter tone.

A new technique for suture rectopexy without resection for rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

We surmised that if rectopexy was performed without dissection of the lateral rectal stalks in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and normal preoperative transit, sigmoid resection may not be required. This study evaluated a new approach to abdominal suture rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

METHODS

A total of 81 patients (57 male, 24 female; median age 37 years, range 5-82 years) with rectal prolapse were assessed by clinical examination, anal manometry (maximum resting pressure, MRP, and squeeze pressure, MSP) and radioopaque marker transit studies. Of the 81 patients, 70 with normal preoperative transit underwent suture fixation alone, without resection, performed under spinal anaesthesia, through a 7-cm transverse left lower quadrant incision gaining access to the presacral space via a left pararectal "window", preserving the lateral stalks.

RESULTS

Average surgical time was 50 min, mortality was zero, and morbidity was 9% (three patients with wound infection, four with urinary retention). Anal incontinence improved in 43 of 53 patients (81%, p=0.001). MRP and MSP had improved at 3 months after surgery: MRP from a mean of 27.6+/-1.4 mmHg (range 2-30 mmHg) before surgery to 32.5+/-2.21 mmHg (2-60 mmHg) after surgery (p=0.008); MSP from 69.25+/-6.4 mmHg (8-153 mmHg) before surgery to 79+/-4.77 mmHg (35-157 mmHg) after surgery (p=0.001).. Transit was unchanged in 18 of 20 patients (90%) who were evaluated before and after surgery; none was constipated after surgery. At 56 months, prolapse had recurred in five patients (7%).

CONCLUSION

Abdominal suture rectopexy with a left pararectal approach without sigmoid resection in those with normal preoperative transit resulted in an improvement in anal incontinence and satisfactory long-term control of prolapse. The operation did not alter transit and did not result in significant constipation.