Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition for apical and posterior compartment prolapse

Prevention of complications related to the use of prosthetic meshes in prolapse surgery: guidelines for clinical practice

The objective of the study was to provide guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CNGOF), based on the best evidence available, concerning adverse events related to surgical procedures involving the use of prosthetic meshes. French and English-language articles from Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database were searched, using key words (mesh; pelvic organ prolapse; cystocele; rectocele; uterine prolapse; complications; adverse event; sacral colpopexy; extrusion; infection). As with any surgery, recommendations include perioperative smoking cessation (Expert opinion) and compliance with the prevention of nosocomial infections (regulatory recommendation). There is no evidence to recommend routine local or systemic estrogen therapy before or after prolapse surgery using mesh, regardless of the surgical approach (Grade C). Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended, regardless of the approach (Expert opinion). It is recommended to check for pre-operative urinary tract infection and treat it (Expert opinion). The first procedure should be undertaken under the guidance of a surgeon experienced in the relevant technique (Grade C). It is recommended not to place a non-absorbable synthetic mesh into the rectovaginal septum when a rectal injury occurs (Expert opinion). Placement of a non-absorbable synthetic mesh into the vesicovaginal septum may be considered after suturing of a bladder injury if the suture is considered to be satisfactory (Expert opinion). If a synthetic mesh is placed by vaginal route, it is recommended to use a macroporous polypropylene monofilament mesh (Grade B). It is recommended not to use polyester mesh for vaginal surgery (Grade B). It is permissible to perform hysterectomy associated with the placement of a non-absorbable synthetic mesh placed by the vaginal route but this is not routinely recommended (Expert opinion). It is recommended to minimize the extent of the colpectomy (Expert opinion). The laparoscopic approach is recommended for sacral colpopexy (Expert opinion). It is recommended not to place and suture meshes by the vaginal route when a sacral colpopexy is performed (Grade B). It is recommended not to use silicone-coated polyester, porcine dermis, fascia lata, and polytetrafluoroethylene meshes (Grade B). It is recommended to use polyester (without silicone coating) or polypropylene meshes (Grade C). Suture of the meshes to the promontory can be performed using thread/needle or tacks (Grade C). Peritonization is recommended to cover the meshes (Grade C). If hysterectomy is required, it is recommended to perform a subtotal hysterectomy (Expert opinion). Implementation of this guideline should decrease the prevalence of complications related to surgical procedures involving the use of prosthetic meshes.

Tailored surgery for internal and external rectal prolapse: functional results of 268 patients operated upon by a single surgeon over a 21-year period*

OBJECTIVE

Many procedures are used to treat internal (IRP) and external rectal prolapse (ERP). We report the outcome of surgery tailored in accordance with an evolving Unit algorithm over a 21-year period.

METHOD

Two hundred and sixty-eight patients (151 IRP and 117 ERP) are reported. Perineal procedures (Delorme's mucosectomy, Altemeier's perineal rectosigmoidectomy) were used in frail elderly patients with ERP with abdominal sacrorectopexy or the Frykman-Goldberg procedure in fit patients. In IRP, prolapsectomy was most common with anterior hemi-Delorme's procedures for rectocele and levatorplasty for coincident faecal incontinence. Clinical and functional outcome was assessed over a median of 61 months (range 4-184 months).

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 0.4%. For ERP, a perineal procedure was carried out in 75 (61.4%) cases with a 7.2% complication rate, postoperative incontinence in 20 (26.7%), constipation in four (5.3%) and recurrence in 12 (16%). For 42 abdominal procedures, the complication rate was 5% with incontinence in 7.1%, constipation in eight (19%) and recurrence in five (11.9%). A perineal operation was used in 89.4% of patients with IRP with incontinence in 10.6%, persistent constipation in 48 (52.7%) and recurrence in 25 (27.5%). The overall incontinence rate was 11% following abdominal and 24% following perineal procedures (P < 0.05). Recurrence of ERP was significantly higher following a perineal operation (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Tailored surgery for ERP achieves satisfactory results in terms of recurrence and functional outcome. For patients with IRP, perineal procedures are associated with a high incidence of recurrence and residual evacuatory difficulty.