Recurrence rates after abdominal surgery for complete rectal prolapse: a multicenter pooled analysis of 643 individual patient data

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The contemporary literature provides conflicting evidence regarding the precedence of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy over laparoscopic suture rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of mesh and suture rectopexy to improve the surgical management of complete rectal prolapse. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to extract studies based on mesh versus suture rectopexy and published from 2001 to 2023. The articles of interest were obtained from PubMed Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Journal Storage (JSTOR), Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes included rectal prolapse recurrence, constipation improvement, and operative time. The secondary endpoints included the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay duration, mortality, overall postoperative complications, and surgical site infection. A statistically significant low recurrence of rectal prolapse (odds ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.80; p=0.009) and longer mean operative duration (mean difference: 27.05, 95% CI 18.86-35.24; p<0.00001) were observed in patients with mesh rectopexy versus suture rectopexy. Both study groups, however, had no significant differences in constipation improvement and all secondary endpoints (all p>0.05). The laparoscopic mesh rectopexy was associated with a low postoperative rectal prolapse recurrence and a longer operative duration compared to laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Prospective randomized controlled trials should further evaluate mesh and suture rectopexy approaches for postoperative outcomes to inform the surgical management of complete rectal prolapse.

Autologous Fascia Lata for Combined Sacrocolpopexy and Rectopexy

ABSTRACT

We present a case series and video of our technique using autologous fascia lata for combined sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy, with or without resection.

What is the recommended procedure for recurrent rectal prolapse? A retrospective cohort study in a single Japanese institution

Purpose

The choice of surgical procedure for rectal prolapse (RP) is challenging because of the high recurrence and morbidity rates. We aimed to clarify whether laparoscopic suture rectopexy (lap-rectopexy) is suitable for Japanese patients with recurrent RP.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 77 recurrent RP patients who had been treated on average 1.5 times between June 2008 and April 2016. Forty-one patients underwent lap-rectopexy and 36 underwent perineal procedures. We compared surgical outcomes and recurrence rate following surgery between the two groups. The multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors of recurrent RP.

Results

In patients’ characteristics, significant differences were observed in the type of anesthesia (p < 0.01) and length of recurrent RP (p = 0.030). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the lap-rectopexy group (p < 0.001). Blood loss, length of hospitalization, and postoperative complications were similar. The recurrence rate was significantly lower in the lap-rectopexy group (17.1% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.032). Multivariate analysis showed that only the laparoscopic approach was significantly associated with a low recurrence following surgery (odds ratio 0.273, 95% CI − 2.568 to − 0.032).

Conclusion

Lap-rectopexy is recommended for recurrent RP because its low recurrence rate and safety profile are similar to those of perineal procedures.

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.

Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh for recurrent disorders of the posterior pelvic organ compartment

PURPOSE

Recurrent prolapse of the posterior pelvic organ compartment presents a management challenge, with the best surgical procedure remaining unclear. We present functional outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) with biological mesh in patients with recurrence.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 30 patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse who underwent VMR with biological mesh from August 2012 to January 2018. Data included patient demographics and intra- and postoperative findings; functional outcome as assessed by Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Score Longo (ODS), and Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS); and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

CCCS, CCIS, and ODS were significantly improved at 6-12 months postoperatively and at last follow-up. Patient satisfaction (visual analog scale [VAS] 6.7 [0 to 10]), subjective symptoms (+ 3.4 [scale - 5 to + 5]), and quality of life improvement (+ 3.0 [scale from - 5 to + 5]) were high at last follow-up. The rates of morbidity and major complications were 13% and 3%, respectively. There were no mesh-related complications or deaths. Difference in type of previous surgery (abdominal or transanal/perineal) had no significant effect on results.

CONCLUSIONS

VMR with biological mesh is a safe and effective option for patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse. It reduces functional symptoms, has a low complication rate, and promotes patient satisfaction.

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.

Laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse: a case report

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer with rectal prolapse is rare, described by only a few case reports. Recently, laparoscopic surgery has become standard procedure for either rectal cancer or rectal prolapse. However, the use of laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse has not been reported.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 63-year-old Japanese woman suffered from rectal prolapse, with a mass and rectal bleeding for 2 years. An examination revealed complete rectal prolapse and the presence of a soft tumor, 7 cm in diameter; the distance from the anal verge to the tumor was 5 cm. Colonoscopy demonstrated a large villous tumor in the lower rectum, which was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy. We performed laparoscopic low anterior resection using the prolapsing technique without rectopexy. The distal surgical margin was more than 1.5 cm from the tumor. There were no major perioperative complications. Twelve months after surgery, our patient is doing well with no evidence of recurrence of either the rectal prolapse or the cancer, and she has not suffered from either fecal incontinence or constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic low anterior resection without rectopexy can be an appropriate surgical procedure for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse. The prolapsing technique is useful in selected patients.

Should we offer ventral rectopexy to patients with recurrent external rectal prolapse?

BACKGROUND

For patients with rectal prolapse undergoing Ventral Rectopexy (VR), the impact of prior prolapse surgery on prolapse recurrence is not well described.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare recurrence rates after VR in patients undergoing primary and repeat rectal prolapse repairs.

DESIGN

This study is a prospective cohort study.

METHODS

IRB-approved prospective data registry of consecutive patients undergoing VR for full-thickness external rectal prolapse between 2009 and 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rectal prolapse recurrence was defined as either external prolapse through the anal sphincters or symptomatic rectal mucosa prolapse warranting additional surgery. Preoperative and postoperative morbidity and functional outcomes were analyzed. Actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 108 VRs were performed during the study period. Seventy-two were primary and 36 repeat repairs. Seven cases were open, 23 laparoscopic, and 78 robotic. Six cases were converted from laparoscopic/robotic to open. In 63 patients, VR was combined with gynecological procedures. There were no statistical differences between primary or recurrent prolapse for the following: demographics, operative time, concomitant gynecologic procedures, complications, blood loss, and graft material type. Length of stay was longer in patients with a history of prior prolapse surgery (p = 0.01). Prolapse recurrence rates for primary repairs were reported at 1.4, 6.9, and 9.7% and for recurrent prolapse procedures 13.9, 25, and 25% at 1, 3, and 5 years (p = 0.13). Mean length of follow-up was similar between groups. Time to recurrence was significantly shorter in patients undergoing repeat prolapse surgery 8.8 vs 30.7 months (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

VR is a better option for patients undergoing primary rectal prolapse repair.

Recurrence of rectal prolapse following rectopexy: a pooled analysis of 532 patients

AIM

The study was designed to address the unanswered question of the influence of the extent of rectal mobilization, the type of rectal fixation and the surgical access (open vs laparoscopic) on recurrence rates following abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP).

METHOD

Individual patient data were pooled and data merging was performed following comparison of variable definitions to ensure similarity in definitions. Recurrence after rectopexy was defined as the presence of FTRP on physical examination. The impact of categorical factors on recurrence was assessed using Fisher's exact and the chi-squared tests. Recurrence-free survival curves were generated for patients and differences in time to recurrence were compared using the log rank test. Factors passing univariate screening with a P value < 0.1 were included in a multivariate model.

RESULTS

After data matching and merging, 532 patients were included. The duration of follow-up ranged from 12 to 235 months. There were 46 (8.6%) recurrences at a median follow-up of 60 months. Mean age was 53.6 ± 17 years, 359 (67.5%) were female, the mean length of external prolapse was 6.3 ± 4 cm, and previous abdominal surgery had taken place in 33.7%. Four variables were identified on initial univariate screening as being related to recurrence. They included a history of incontinence (P = 0.09), constipation (P = 0.018), the extent of rectal mobilization (P = 0.004) and the role of sigmoid resection (P = 0.057). Using multivariate analysis, only the degree of mobilization was independently associated with recurrence (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Circumferential rectal mobilization during rectopexy was associated with a decreased long-term recurrence rate. The type of rectal fixation and the type of surgical access did not influence recurrence.

Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse

External and internal rectal prolapse with their affiliated rectocele and enterocele, are associated with debilitating symptoms such as obstructed defecation, pelvic pain and faecal incontinence. Since perineal procedures are associated with a higher recurrence rate, an abdominal approach is commonly preferred. Despite the description of greater than three hundred different procedures, thus far no clear superiority of one surgical technique has been demonstrated. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a relatively new and promising technique to correct rectal prolapse. In contrast to the abdominal procedures of past decades, VMR avoids posterolateral rectal mobilisation and thereby minimizes the risk of postoperative constipation. Because of a perceived acceptable recurrence rate, good functional results and low mesh-related morbidity in the short to medium term, VMR has been popularized in the past decade. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted VMR is now being progressively performed internationally and several articles and guidelines propose the procedure as the treatment of choice for rectal prolapse. In this article, an outline of the current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse is presented.

Long-term Outcome After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: An Observational Study of 919 Consecutive Patients

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter study aims to assess long-term functional outcome, early and late (mesh-related) complications, and recurrences after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) for rectal prolapse syndromes in a large cohort of consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcome data for prolapse repair are rare. A high incidence of mesh-related problems has been noted after transvaginal approaches using nonresorbable meshes.

METHODS

All patients treated with LVR at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands and the University Hospital Leuven, Belgium between January 1999 and March 2013 were enrolled in this study. All data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for recurrences and mesh-related problems.

RESULTS

919 consecutive patients (869 women; 50 men) underwent LVR. A 10-year recurrence rate of 8.2% (95% confidence interval, 3.7-12.7) for external rectal prolapse repair was noted. Mesh-related complications were recorded in 18 patients (4.6%), of which mesh erosion to the vagina occurred in 7 patients (1.3%). In 5 of these patients, LVR was combined with a perineotomy. Both rates of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) after LVR compared to the preoperative incidence (11.1% vs 37.5% for incontinence and 15.6% vs 54.0% for constipation).

CONCLUSIONS

LVR is safe and effective for the treatment of different rectal prolapse syndromes. Long-term recurrence rates are in line with classic types of mesh rectopexy and occurrence of mesh-related complications is rare.

Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults

BACKGROUND

Complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse is a lifestyle-altering disability that commonly affects older people. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying pelvic floor defects in full-thickness rectal prolapse reflects the lack of consensus regarding the best operation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different surgical repairs for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register up to 3 February 2015; it contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as well as trials identified through handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We also searched EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1947 to February 2015) and PubMed (January 1950 to December 2014), and we specifically handsearched theBritish Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to June 2014), Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to June 2014) and Colorectal Diseases (January 2000 to June 2014), as well as the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meetings (January 2000 to December 2014). Finally, we handsearched reference lists of all relevant articles to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgery for managing full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The four primary outcome measures were the number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse, number of patients with faecal incontinence and number of patients with constipation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1007 participants in this third review update. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery, and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy. One new trial compared rectopexy versus rectal mobilisation only (no rectopexy), performed with either open or laparoscopic surgery. One new trial compared different techniques used in perineal surgery, and another included three comparisons: abdominal versus perineal surgery, resection versus no resection rectopexy in abdominal surgery and different techniques used in perineal surgery.The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. Given these caveats, there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches are most effective. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more postoperative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation. Recurrence of full-thickness prolapse was greater for mobilisation of the rectum only compared with rectopexy. There were no differences in quality of life for patients who underwent the different kinds of prolapse surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The lack of high quality evidence on different techniques, together with the small sample size of included trials and their methodological weaknesses, severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Longer follow-up with current studies and larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence base and to define the optimum surgical treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

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.

A systematic review of the literature on the surgical management of recurrent rectal prolapse

AIM

There are no available guidelines to support surgical decision-making in recurrent rectal prolapse. This systematic review evaluated the results of abdominal or perineal surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse, with the aim of developing an evidence-based treatment algorithm.

METHOD

PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched for all clinical studies involving patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse between 1950 and 2014. The primary outcome measure was the recurrence rate after abdominal or perineal surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. Secondary outcomes included morbidity, mortality and quality of life data where available.

RESULTS

There were no randomized controlled studies comparing the success rates of abdominal or perineal surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. Most studies were heterogeneous, of low quality (level IV) and involved small numbers of patients. The follow-up of 144 patients included in the studies undergoing perineal surgery ranged from 8.8 to 81 months, with recurrence rates varying from 0% to 50%. Morbidity ranged from 0% to 17% with no mortality reported. Limited data on quality of life following the Altemeier procedure were available. The follow-up for 158 patients included in the studies who underwent abdominal surgery ranged from 0 to 23 years, during which recurrence rates varied from 0% to 15%. Morbidity rates ranged from 0% to 32% with 4% mortality. No quality of life data were available for patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review was unable to develop a treatment algorithm for recurrent rectal prolapse due to the variety of surgical techniques described and the low level of evidence within heterogeneous studies. Larger high-quality studies are necessary to guide practice in this difficult area.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Ten-year follow up after laparoscopic suture rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse

AIM

Studies have shown that recurrence rates of full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) 5 years after surgery can quadruple at 10 years. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic suture rectopexy for FTRP on recurrence rates and functional outcome at a median follow up of 10 years.

METHOD

Prospectively collected data for patients who underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy for FTRP between 1993 and 2006 were analysed. Laparoscopic rectopexy consisted of circumferential mobilization of the rectum down to the levator followed by suture suspension to promontory. Patients with preexisting constipation or who were unfit for general anaesthesia were not included. Incontinence, quality of life and constipation were assessed by validated scores. Recurrence-free curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-nine patients with a median age of 62 (15-93) years including 174 women and five men underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy. There was no mortality. The 30-day complication rate was 4% (partial transection of the left ureter, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, urinary retention, superficial surgical site infection). Data on 172 patients (96%) were available at follow up. There were 10 recurrences of FTRP at 5-year follow up giving a crude recurrence rate of 6%. The actuarial 10-year recurrence rate was 20% (95% CI, 10.8-20.1). Follow-up continence (P < 0.0001) and quality of life were better than preoperatively: lifestyle (P < 0.001), coping (P < 0.001), self-perception (P < 0.005), embarrassment (P < 0.06). Constipation was unchanged.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic suture rectopexy led to few complications, a recurrence rate of 20%, improved continence and quality of life with no worsening of constipation at 10 years.

Reviews of individual patient data (IPD) are useful for geriatrics: an overview of available IPD reviews

OBJECTIVES

To determine how many individual patient data (IPD) reviews that included older people were available in MEDLINE and whether the effectiveness of treatments differed between older and younger individuals.

DESIGN

Overview of IPD reviews.

SETTING

A MEDLINE search was conducted for IPD reviews of randomized controlled trials published before July 2012.

PARTICIPANTS

IPD reviews that presented a regression model that included age as a factor or a subgroup analysis of individuals aged 70 and older or in which all participants were aged 70 and older.

MEASUREMENTS

Whether the IPD reviews reported similar conclusions for the younger and older populations was evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six IPD reviews with a subgroup of older individuals and eight reviews with only older individuals were included (median N = 3,351). The most important reason for choosing an IPD review was the ability to perform a subgroup analysis in the older population. Fourteen IPD reviews suggested that older people should receive different treatments from younger people because of differences in effectiveness, six of which indicated that the investigated treatment(s) should be avoided in older adults.

CONCLUSION

IPD review is a valuable approach for generating evidence in older adults. Treatment effects frequently differed between older and younger individuals. Still, IPD results should be applied to older adults cautiously, because they are often excluded from primary trials. The collaborative sharing of raw data should be promoted to improve evidence-based decisions for this group.

Laparoscopic implementation of the Altemeier procedure for recurrent rectal prolapse. Technical note

INTRODUCTION

Many surgical options exist to treat rectal prolapse with different indications, feasibility and results in urgent and complicated cases. These include perineal or abdominal approaches including rectopexy with or without resection. Perineal approaches have reduced surgical invasivity and hospital stay if compared to transabdominal approaches by open surgery or laparoscopy. Up to now there was still a clear dividing line for surgical treatment between the perineal approach, used more for complicated emergency case while the transabdominal open, or laparoscopic approach more common in elective surgery, but more complex to perform.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 37 year old female patient affected by psychiatric disease presented with an unreducible second recurrence of a complicated rectal prolapse. The patient was treated with a third Altemeier procedure but now performed under laparoscopic control. The patient recovered promptly without any complication or recurrence up to the 24 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report describing the combined laparoscopic-perineal approach for the treatment of a complicated recurrence of rectal prolapse. The technical feasibility, the rapidity, the optimal outcome and the rationale behind this option all suggest that this laparoscopic assistance certainly allows an implementation of the effectiveness, safety and results of an established effective perineal approach.

CONCLUSION

This combined approach has the advantage of maintaining the simplicity and rapidity of conventional perineal surgery, adding the advantages of abdominal control and avoiding the risks, the invasivity, and the longer duration of more complex laparoscopic procedures.

Laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse to reduce surgical-site infections and length of stay

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is commonly seen in patients with significant co-morbidities. Multiple approaches have been described, including the use of laparoscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic approaches for repair of rectal prolapse are associated with less short-term morbidity than open approaches.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients who underwent laparoscopic or open rectopexy (R) or sigmoid resection and rectopexy (SR + R) between 2005 and 2008. Co-morbidities analyzed included diabetes, body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, cardiac (history of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, previous percutaneous cardiac intervention or surgery), and neurologic disorder (history of transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident). Postoperative complications analyzed included surgical-site infections (SSIs), pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolus, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis. The χ (2) or t test/ANOVA were used to assess significance for categoric and continuous variables, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for morbidity after rectal prolapse repair.

RESULTS

Altogether, 685 patients underwent surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. Most patients underwent open SR + R (open: 247 SR + R, 193 R; laparoscopic: 161 SR + R, 84 R). All patients had similar co-morbidity profiles. Patients undergoing laparoscopic R were significantly older (mean age 61.4 years) than those in the other three groups (p = 0.04). Operating time ranged from 128 min (open R) to 185 min (laparoscopic SR + R; p < 0.001). Open SR + R and open R were associated with significantly more morbidity than laparoscopic SR + R and R [odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.83, p = 0.01]. Comparing all four procedures, there was a trend to decreased overall morbidity with laparoscopic R, but without statistical significance (OR 0.31, 95 % CI 0.07-1.40, p = 0.13). Length of hospital stay (LOS) and SSI rates were significantly lower with laparoscopic R than with the other three procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo laparoscopic rectopexy have a shorter LOS and lower SSI rate than patients who undergo other abdominal procedures for repair of rectal prolapse. Further study is necessary to determine the long-term outcomes from laparoscopic rectopexy, but in high-risk patients the laparoscopic approach can decrease perioperative risk.

Comparative study between Delorme operation with or without postanal repair and levateroplasty in treatment of complete rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is a distressing and socially disabling condition. controversy exists regarding the preferred surgical technique for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

We compared Delorme operation alone or with postanal repair and levatroplasty in treating complete rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Consecutive patients treated for rectal prolapse at our colorectal unit were evaluated for inclusion. Participants were randomly allocated to receive Delorme operation only (GI), or Delorme operation with postanal repair and levatorplasty (GII).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was recurrence rate; secondary outcomes included improvement of constipation, incontinence, operative time, anal manometery and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Eighty-two consecutive patients with rectal prolapse were randomized. There was a significant difference between the two groups with longer operative time in group II. Recurrence rate after one year was (14.28% in GI, and 2.43% in GII, respectively (P = 0.043). Constipation improved in group I & II but there was a significant difference in constipation scores postoperatively between the two groups. There was improvement in continence mechanism in both groups postoperatively but being higher in group II and this produce a significant statistical difference (0.004). Mean satisfaction score was significantly higher in group II than group I. Both groups succeed to produce a significant change in resting and squeeze pressure before & after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Delorme operation seems to be an effective procedure for treating complete rectal prolapse especially if combined with postanal repair and levatorplasty.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01656369.

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.

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.

How to do it--laparoscopic resection rectopexy

INTRODUCTION

A variety of surgical strategies have been suggested and many surgical techniques, both abdominal and perineal, have been introduced for treatment of rectal prolapse. All these techniques and approaches are based on the attempt to restore the normal anatomy and physiologic function.

METHODS

In 1992, Berman et al. published the first laparoscopically performed rectopexy. Meanwhile, many different minimally invasive procedures have been described. Throughout the past century, more than 100 different surgical techniques have been introduced to treat patients with rectal prolapse. Unfortunately, there is still lack of one generally accepted standard technique for the surgical treatment of rectal prolapse.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Our current data strongly supports laparoscopic resection rectopexy to be a safe, fast, and very effective procedure to improve function in patients with rectal prolapse. More evaluations of long-term outcome are needed that focus on each particular laparoscopic procedure to adequately compare different techniques. The indication to perform a laparoscopic resection rectopexy in patients with a previous perineal procedure and a recurrent prolapse should be stated critically because these patients seem to have a high risk to develop yet another recurrence.

Outcome of laparoscopic rectopexy versus perineal rectosigmoidectomy for full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

The balance between abdominal and perineal approaches for rectal prolapse is always the higher morbidity but better outcome in the former setting. Therefore, perineal approaches have been preferred for the treatment of full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) in elderly patients. However, laparoscopic rectopexy with or without resection also may be used for elderly patients and may confer the same benefits.

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of laparoscopic rectopexy compared with perineal rectosigmoidectomy for FTRP in elderly patients.

METHODS

Between July 2000 and June 2009, eight consecutive patients (8 women; mean age, 71 (range, 65-77) years) with FTRP underwent laparoscopic rectopexy (LAP group). During the same period, 143 patients underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS group). A total of 123 patients were selected who underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy (117 women; mean age, 80.7 (range, 66-98) years).

RESULTS

Three patients (37.5%) in the LAP group and 29 patients (23.6%) in the PRS group had undergone previous operations for rectal prolapse. The mean follow-up periods were 6.9 months and 12.8 months, respectively. In the LAP group, operative time was longer (166.5 vs. 73.5 minutes; p > 0.05) and bleeding loss was more (101.7 vs. 31.6; p < 0.05), whereas the length of hospitalization was same between the two groups (5.4 vs. 5.3 days; p > 0.05). Postoperative complications included an incisional hernia in the LAP group (12.5%) and urinary retention (4.8%), anastomotic disruption (2.4%), urinary tract infection (1.6%), and atelectasis (1.6%) in the PRS group (13.8%). Recurrences were 1 (12.5%) in the LAP group and 14 (11.4%) in the PRS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure in elderly patients with FTRP but results in increased operative time.

No rectopexy versus rectopexy following rectal mobilization for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

No randomized controlled trial has compared no rectopexy with rectopexy for external full-thickness rectal prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to test the hypothesis that recurrence rates following no rectopexy are not inferior to those following rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

DESIGN

This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to no rectopexy or rectopexy. The end point was recurrence rates defined as the presence of external full-thickness rectal prolapse after surgery. A prerandomized controlled trial meta-analysis suggested a sample size of 251 patients based on a 15% expected difference in the 5-year cumulative recurrence rate. Recurrence-free curves were generated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test, respectively. Data were presented as median (range).

SETTING

This study was conducted in 41 tertiary centers in 21 countries.

PATIENTS

Patients with prior surgery for rectal prolapse or pelvic floor descent were not included.

INTERVENTIONS

The no-rectopexy arm was defined as abdominal surgery with rectal mobilization only. The rectopexy arm was defined as abdominal surgery with mobilization and rectopexy. Sigmoid resection was not randomized and was added in the presence of constipation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Two hundred fifty-two patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse were randomly assigned to undergo no rectopexy or rectopexy in 41 centers. All patients but one underwent the allocated intervention. One hundred sixteen no-rectopexy patients were comparable to 136 rectopexy patients for age (P = .21), body mass index (P = .61), ASA grade (P = .29), and previous abdominal surgery (P = .935), but not for sex (P = .013) and external full-thickness rectal prolapse length (8 (1-25) cm vs 5 (1-20) cm, P = .026). Sigmoid resection was performed more frequently in the no-rectopexy arm (P < .001). There was no significant difference in complication rates (11% vs 17.9%; P = .139). The mortality rate was 0.8%. The loss of patients to 5-year follow-up was 10.3%. Actuarial analysis demonstrated a significant difference in 5-year recurrence rates between study arms (8.6% vs 1.5%) (log-rank, P = .003).

LIMITATIONS

Limitations were the high proportion of male patients, randomization timing, the lack of standardization for rectopexy technique, and the 10% loss to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence rates following no rectopexy are inferior to those following rectopexy for external full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Common transperineal surgical options for rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a troublesome anorectal disorder. Surgical procedures for rectal prolapse contain transabdominal and transperineal approaches. There are hundreds of transabdominal approaches currently available for treatment of rectal prolapse. In contrast, only tens of transperineal approaches available for the disease, such as Delorme procedure, Altemeier prodecure, Thiersch prodecure and Gant-Miwa prodecure. Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) represents the latest advance in transperineal treatment of rectal prolapse. Injection treatment is applied widely in China and has remarkable superiority. As each procedure has its strength and weakness, selection of appropriate procedure based on individual difference can greatly improve surgical outcome. Individualized diagnosis and treatment plan may represent a new direction for transperineal surgical treatment of rectal prolapse.

Common transabdominal surgical options for rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a troublesome anorectal disorder. Surgical procedures for rectal prolapse contain transabdominal and transperineal approaches. There are hundreds of transabdominal procedures currently available for treatment of the disease, such as Ripstein procedure, Wells procedure, Orr procedure, Nigro procedure, anterior resection, Frykman-Goldberg procedure, and Roscoe Graham procedure. Laparoscopic repair represents the latest advance in surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. As each procedure has its strength and weakness, personalized selection of appropriate procedure can greatly improve surgical outcome. Individualized diagnosis and treatment plan may represent a new direction for transabdominal surgical treatment of rectal prolapse.

Rectal prolapse

Despite the innovation of more than 100 surgical procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse, no one procedure is best and applicable to all patients. Traditionally, procedures have been divided into abdominal and perineal approaches. The application of the laparoscopic approach to colon and rectal disease has allowed an additional less invasive method of therapy to treat rectal prolapse successfully. In comparison with conventional approaches, laparoscopy has achieved similar functional results and recurrence rates while reducing postoperative pain and hospital length of stay.

Open vs laparoscopic repair of full-thickness rectal prolapse: a re-meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A re-meta-analysis of available data within the published literature comparing laparoscopic rectopexy (LR) with open repair (OR).

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane databases from January 1990 to October 2008. We searched the following MESH terms: 'laparoscopy', 'prolapse' and 'rectal prolapse'. We used the following text words: 'rectopexy', 'haemorrhoids', 'minimally invasive' and 'keyhole surgery'. The bibliography of selected trials and a Cochrane review was scrutinized and relevant references obtained. Selected trials were analysed to conduct a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve comparative studies on 688 patients qualified for the review. There were 330 patients in LR group and 358 in the OR group. LR takes longer to perform compared with OR. This difference was statistically significant [random effects model: standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.63, 95% CI (1.14-2.12), z = 6.56, P < 0.001]. There was a significant reduction in hospital stay between LR vs OR [random effects model: SMD -1.75, 95% CI (-2.45 to -1.05), z = -4.90, P < 0.001]. There was no statistical difference relating to morbidity, constipation, incontinence or mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and effective modality and is comparable to OR, however, there is still a paucity of randomized controlled trials within the literature regarding this subject. Until these trials are conducted, we would advise caution in deriving absolute conclusions.

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-center study during 16 years

BACKGROUND

Many different techniques to treat rectal prolapse have been introduced. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy has been shown to entail benefits regarding both perioperative results and short-term outcome, whereas data for long-term outcome are scarce.

METHODS

Between 1993 and 2008, all laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse II° or III° were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. We analyzed demographic, perioperative, and follow-up results. We defined two periods (1993-2000 and 2001-2008) for comparison of data. Long-term follow-up was obtained by sending questionnaires to all patients. Evaluation included constipation, incontinence, and recurrence of prolapse.

RESULTS

Between January 1993 and November 2008, we performed 152 laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse. Median age was 64.1 years (± 14.6). Conversion rate was 0.7% (1), mean operation time was 204 (± 65.3) min, and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first (P < 0.0001). Mortality was 0.7% (n = 1). Complication rates were 4% (n = 6; major) and 19.2% (n = 29; minor), respectively. Mean length of hospital stay was 11.3 (± 6.4) days and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first period (P < 0.0001). Mean time of follow-up was 47.7 (± 41.6) months. Improvement or complete elimination of constipation was stated by 81.3% (65), and improvement or elimination of incontinence was stated by 67.3% (72). Overall recurrence rate was 11.1% (n = 10) with a rate of 5.6% (n = 5) for a 5-year period. Of those patients with previous perineal surgery for rectal prolapse, 53.8% (7/13) experienced recurrent prolapse after laparoscopic resection rectopexy in contrast to 3.9% (3/77) of patients without previous perineal prolapse surgery (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the benefits of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse regarding both perioperative results and long-term functional outcome. Preceding perineal or open abdominal operations have an impact on recurrence after laparoscopic resection rectopexy.

The Delorme repair for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a retrospective review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess our colorectal surgical training program experience with the Delorme procedure for complete rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Consecutive patients were identified from a surgical database and evaluated by chart review.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients with a mean follow-up period of 3.6 years were included. Outcomes included a recurrence rate of 14.5%, an overall complication rate of 25%, and a surgical site-specific complication rate of 8%. For patients younger than 50 years old (mean age, 36 y; range, 19-49 y), the recurrence rate was 8% with a mean follow-up period of 4.1 years. Their total complication rate was 15%, with no surgery site-specific complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results are consistent with previously published experiences in that most preoperative evacuatory symptoms resolve with repair of the prolapse, and serious complications are uncommon. The observation that recurrence and complication rates may be lower in younger medically fit patients suggests the Delorme repair need not be restricted specifically to older, medically unfit patients.

Long-term functional outcomes after laparoscopic and open rectopexy for the treatment of rectal prolapse

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic rectopexy to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse has proven short-term benefits, but there is little long-term follow-up and functional outcome data available.

METHODS

Patients who had abdominal surgery for prolapse during a ten-year period were identified and interviewed to ascertain details of prolapse recurrence, constipation, incontinence, cosmesis, and satisfaction. Additional details on recurrences that required surgery and mortality were obtained from chart review and the State Death Registry.

RESULTS

Of 321 prolapse operations, laparoscopic rectopexy was performed in 126 patients, open rectopexy in 46, and resection rectopexy in 21 patients. At a median follow-up of five years after laparoscopic rectopexy, there were five (4 percent) confirmed full-thickness recurrences that required surgery. Actuarial recurrence rates of laparoscopic rectopexy were 6.9 percent at five years (95 percent confidence interval, 0.1-13.8 percent) and 10.8 percent at ten years (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9-20.1 percent). Seven patients underwent rubber band ligation for mucosal prolapse and seven required other surgical procedures. There was one recurrence after open rectopexy (2.4 percent) and one after resection rectopexy (4.7 percent), and there was no significant difference between groups. Overall constipation scores were not increased after laparoscopic rectopexy, with no significant difference to open rectopexy or resection rectopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated that laparoscopic rectopexy has reliable long-term results for treating rectal prolapse, including low recurrence rates and no overall change in functional outcomes.

Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults

BACKGROUND

Complete rectal prolapse is a life-style altering disability that commonly affects older people. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying pelvic floor defects in complete rectal prolapse suggests that there is no agreement about the choice of the best operation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of surgery on the treatment of rectal prolapse in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 10 January 2008), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Trials Register (searched 10 January 2008), CENTRAL (Issue 1, 2008), PubMed (1 January 1950 to 10 January 2008) and EMBASE (1 January 1998 to 10 January 2008). The British Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to January 2008) and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to January 2008) were specifically hand searched. The proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meetings held from 1999 to 2007 were perused. Reference lists of all relevant articles were searched for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult rectal prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The four primary outcome measures were: number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse, and number of patients with faecal incontinence or constipation.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve randomised controlled trials including 380 participants were identified and included in this review. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy.The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. With these caveats in mind there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches has a better outcome. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more post-operative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer post-operative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The small sample size of included trials together with their methodological weaknesses severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence with which to define optimum surgical treatment for rectal prolapse: the results of one such trial are awaited.

Rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, rectocele, solitary rectal ulcer syndrome, and enterocele

Rectal prolapse is best diagnosed by physical examination and by having the patient strain as if to defecate; a laparoscopic rectopexy is the preferred treatment approach. Intussusception is more an epiphenomena than a defecatory disorder and should be managed conservatively. Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome is a consequence of chronic straining and therapy should be aimed at restoring a normal bowel habit with behavioral approaches including biofeedback therapy. Rectocele correction may be considered if it can be definitively established that it is a cause of defecation disorder and only after conservative measures have failed. An enterocele should only be operated when pain and heaviness are predominant symptoms and it is refractory to conservative therapy.