Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is the gold standard treatment for rectal prolapse

The Current Evidence and How-To on Combined Sacrocolpopexy and Rectopexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Multicompartment prolapse is a complex pelvic floor condition that can involve coordination of both urogynecologists and colorectal surgeons.

METHODS

Concomitant sacrocolpopexy and ventral rectopexy is a safe and effective approach to treating this condition.

RESULTS

The combined procedure has high rates of patient satisfaction and symptom improvement, including defecatory dysfunction, sexual health, and overall increased quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Concomitant sacrocolpopexy with ventral rectopexy is safe and improves overall outcomes.

Healthcare Resource Utilization Following Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy: Impact of Concomitant Rectopexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Combined surgical procedures with sacrocolpopexy (SCP) and rectopexy (RP) are more commonly being performed for treatment of multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) within 6 weeks following combined surgery (SCP-RP) versus SCP alone (SCP-only). We hypothesized that concomitant RP does not impact HRU.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent minimally invasive SCP from 2017 to 2022 was conducted at a tertiary referral center. Patients were grouped based on the performance of concomitant RP. HRU was defined as a composite of unscheduled office visits, emergency department visits, and readmissions before the 6-week postoperative visit. HRU was compared in the SCP-RP and SCP-only groups. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with HRU.

RESULTS

There were 144 patients in the SCP-RP group and 405 patients in the SCP-only group. Patient characteristics were similar between the two groups, with the following exceptions: the SCP-RP group was older, more likely to have comorbid conditions, and live >60 miles from the hospital. Of the 549 patients, 183 (33.3%) had ≥1 HRU encounter within 6 weeks after surgery. However, there was no difference between the SCP-RP and SCP-only groups in composite HRU (34.0% vs 33.1%, p = 0.84). The most common reasons for HRU were pain, urinary tract infection symptoms, and wound issues. Concomitant mid-urethral sling was associated with a two-fold increased risk of HRU after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 3 patients undergoing minimally invasive SCP had at least one unanticipated encounter within 6 weeks after surgery. Concomitant RP was not associated with increased postoperative HRU.

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.

Non-conventional applications for Transanal endoscopic microsurgery. A single centre experience and a systematic review of literature

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and Transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) have been initially described for local excision of rectal adenomas and selected cases of rectal carcinomas. In the past decade, however, several new indications raised, and others could raise in the future. The aim of this review was to evaluate, both in the literature and in our personal experience, the use of TEM and TEO for nonconventional applications, different from rectal tumors.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published papers and we selected articles reporting patients who underwent endoscopic surgery for other medical reason than polyp cancer resection, with TEM or TEO. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and bibliographies of the selected studies were searched for articles in English published up to May 2020 to identify all relevant articles. We excluded articles reporting TEM and TEO used for classical indications. We finally report our experience of non-conventional use of TEO in 5 patients with different diseases.

RESULTS

The research revealed 800 papers and among them we selected 52 articles for a total of 697 patients. Of all patients, only 52 had intraoperative or postoperative complications, with only 10 patients requiring major surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggest that TEM and TEO may be valid alternatives to traditional surgery in situations other than its classical indication. These findings can positively impact on the care of patients, who could benefit from less invasive surgical procedures associated with lower morbidity.

Non-randomized studies should be considered for assessing surgical techniques in rectal prolapse: prospective cohort study

AIM

Randomized trials comparing surgical techniques for rectal prolapse are not always feasible. We assessed whether non-randomized comparisons of those who have had surgery with those still waiting would be confounding baseline health status.

METHOD

This was a prospective cohort study in seven UK hospitals. Participants were ≥ 18 years and listed for surgical interventions of equivalent intensity for rectal prolapse. They were defined as short or long waiters (≤ 18 or > 18 weeks, respectively). Time on the waiting list was compared with baseline comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index) and change from baseline in health status (EQ-5D-5L) at the time of surgery.

RESULTS

In all, 203 patients were analysed. Median (interquartile range) waiting time was 13.7 weeks (8.1, 20.4) varying across sites. Baseline comorbidity was not an important predictor of waiting time. Median Charlson comorbidity index was 2 (0, 3) for short and 1 (0, 3) for long waiters. A change in waiting time by a week was associated with negligible improvement in the EQ-5D-5L index of 0.001 (95% CI -0.000 to 0.003, P = 0.106).

CONCLUSION

Negligible change in patient reported health status while on the waiting list and lack of effect of comorbidities in influencing waiting time support the use of non-randomized pre-/post-studies to compare the effects of surgical interventions for rectal prolapse.