Redo ventral rectopexy: is it worthwhile?

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.