Functional results two years after laparoscopic rectopexy

Mesh Rectopexy or Resection Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse; Is There a Gold Standard Method: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

(1) Background: Rectal prolapse is a benign condition that mainly affects females and the elderly. The most common symptoms are constipation and incontinence. The treatment of choice is surgical, but so far, there has been no gold standard method. The aim of this study is to compare the two most common intrabdominal procedures utilized for treating rectal prolapse: the resection rectopexy and the mesh rectopexy. (2) Methods: In this study, we conducted a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature and compared the two different approaches regarding their complication rate, recurrence rate, and improvement of symptoms rate. (3) Results: No statistically significant difference between the two methods was found regarding the operating time, the length of stay, the overall complication rate, the surgical site infection rate, the cardiopulmonary complication rate, the improvement in constipation and incontinence rates, and the recurrence rate. (4) Conclusions: Our study revealed that mesh rectopexy and resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse have similar short- and long-term outcomes. As a result, the decision for the procedure used should be individualized and based on the surgeon's preference and expertise.

European Society of Coloproctology guidance on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery

This is a comprehensive and rigorous review of currently available data on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery. This guideline outlines the limitations of available data and the challenges of interpretation, followed by best possible recommendations.

Surgical Techniques for Rectal Prolapse

Complete rectal prolapse or rectal procidentia is a debilitating disease that presents with fecal incontinence, constipation, and rectal discharge. Definitive surgical techniques described for this disease include perineal procedures such as mucosectomy and rectosigmoidectomy, and abdominal procedures such as rectopexy with or without mesh and concomitant resection. The debate over these techniques regarding the lowest recurrence and morbidity rates, and the best functional outcomes for constipation or incontinence, has been going on for decades. The heterogeneity of available studies does not allow us to draw firm conclusions. This article aims to review the surgical techniques for complete rectal prolapse based on the current evidence base regarding surgical and functional outcomes.

Anatomo-functional outcomes of the laparoscopic Frykman-Goldberg procedure for rectal prolapse in a tertiary referral centre

Rectal prolapse is a common disorder that represents a burden for patients due to the associated symptoms that may include both incontinence and constipation. Currently, a huge variation in techniques exist. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anatomo-functional results of the laparoscopic Frykman-Goldberg procedure (LFGP) for the treatment of both internal (IRP) and complete rectal prolapse (CRP). Between July 2004 and October 2019, 45 patients with IRP and CRP underwent a LFGP. The Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Syndrome Score (ODSS) and Vaizey Score (VS) were assessed preoperatively, 3 months before the procedure, 12 months after the procedures and at the final follow-up visit. The patients' mean age was 51.4 ± 17.9 (15-93) years, and the mean follow-up was 9.24 ± 4.57 (1.6-16.3) years. The VS, CCCS and ODSS significantly improved (p = 0.008; p < 0.001; p < 0.001) from median preoperative values of 3, 20 and 18 to 2, 6 and 5, respectively. Furthermore, the improvements in scores during follow-up remained constant and significant over time when considering the two groups separately (time effect for ODSS p < 0.001, for VS p = 0.026, for CCCS p < 0.001) and when the patients were divided by age (< 40, 41-60 and > 60; p < 0.001). The overall complication rate was 8.9% (4/45), and no intraoperative complications or anastomotic leakage occurred. Conversion to the open approach was not necessary in any case. The overall success rate was 97.7%, and only one recurrence in the IRP group occurred after 14 months. LRGP can be considered a safe, effective and long-lasting procedure in young patients with IRP or CRP, a history of ODS and a redundant sigmoid colon.

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.

Laparoscopic Suture versus Mesh Rectopexy for the Treatment of Persistent Complete Rectal Prolapse in Children: A Comparative Randomized Study

Purpose

To compare laparoscopic mesh rectopexy with laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Patients and Methods. The prospective study was conducted at Pediatric Surgery Department, Al-Azhar University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt between Feb 2010 and Jan 2015. Seventy-eight children with persistent complete rectal prolapse were subjected to laparoscopic rectopexy. Fourteen parents refused to participate. All patients received initial conservative treatment for more than one year. The remaining 64 patients were randomized divided into two equal groups. Group A; 32 patients underwent laparoscopic mesh rectopexy and group B, 32 underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy. The operative time, recurrence rate, post-operative constipation, and effect on fecal incontinence, were reported and evaluated for each group.

Results

Sixty-four cases presented with persistent complete rectal prolapse were the material of this study. They were 40 males and 24 females. Mean age at operation was 8 (5–12) years. All cases were completed laparoscopically. Mean operative time in laparoscopic suture rectopexy was shorter than laparoscopic mesh rectopexy group. No early post-operative complications were encountered. No cases of recurrence with mesh rectopexy group while in suture rectopexy group it was 4 cases (14.2%). Post-operative constipation occurred in one case (3.57%) in suture rectopexy group and occurred in one case (3.3%) in mesh rectopexy group. Fecal incontinence improved in 26/28 cases (92.8%) in suture rectopexy while in mesh rectopexy it was improved in 30/30 cases (100%) of cases.

Conclusion

Both laparoscopic mesh and suture rectopexy are feasible and reliable methods for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse in children. However, no recurrence, low incidence of constipation and high improvement of incontinence at follow up more than 36 months with mesh rectopexy accordingly, we considered mesh rectopexy to be the procedure of choice in treatment of complete rectal prolapse.

Chylothorax after hepatectomy: a case report

BACKGROUND

Chylothorax is the accumulation of chyle within the pleural space. Chylothorax can occur as a complication after multiple different types of surgery, most frequently after thoracic surgery, albeit with an incidence rate of less than 1%. Chylothorax after abdominal surgery is extremely rare, and there are only a few case reports.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 74-year-old Japanese woman presented with jaundice. She was diagnosed as having hilar cholangiocarcinoma and underwent right hepatectomy, caudate lobectomy, extrahepatic bile duct resection, and lymph node dissection after preoperative percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization. Postoperative liver function was normal. She developed chylous ascites on postoperative day 5, for which conservative treatment was initially effective. Dyspnea developed suddenly on postoperative day 42, and she had a massive right pleural effusion and a small amount of ascites. Management with pleural drainage, total parenteral nutrition, and octreotide injections decreased the chylothorax. However, the chylous effusion reaccumulated on postoperative day 57. As conservative treatments ultimately failed, lymphangiography was performed on postoperative day 62. Lymphangiography with Lipiodol (ethiodized oil) revealed extravasation into the pleural space, but the location of the leak was not identified. There was neither obstruction nor dilation of the thoracic duct. A lymphatic leak in her abdominal cavity was not demonstrated. A chest tube was placed after lymphangiography, and the chylothorax was diminished by postoperative day 71. She was discharged on postoperative day 72. Two and a half years after surgery, she is doing well with no evidence of recurrence of either chylothorax or cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Chylothorax can occur after hepatectomy and pleural effusion should raise suspicion for chylothorax. Lymphangiography may be effective for both diagnosis and treatment in the case of chylothorax after hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic Protack™ rectopexy: Early experience of a novel technique for full thickness rectal prolapse in children

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To review our early experience of laparoscopic ProTack™ rectopexy (LPR) in the management of full thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) in children.

METHODS

Prospective case series of patients undergoing LPR between 2013 and 2017. Full laparoscopic mobilization of the rectum was performed from the sacral promontory to the pelvic floor. 'Wings' of the lateral mesorectal peritoneum left attached to the rectum are then fixed to the sacral promontory using ProTack™. Demographics, associated conditions, previous procedures for FTRP, follow up time, length of stay (LOS), short and long term complications and clinical improvement were assessed.

RESULTS

Seven consecutive patients with FTRP underwent LPR. The mean age was 9 years old (2-17) with a male to female ratio of 6:1. Median LOS was 1 day (1-2 days). Median follow up time was 17 months (10-38 months). All patients had complete resolution of symptoms within the follow up period.

CONCLUSIONS

LPR is a simple, safe and effective procedure showing promising results in children. It negates the risks associated with the use of mesh and has the potential to avoid the higher risk of failure associated with suture rectopexy. It is important to ensure patients receive adequate analgesia and management of postoperative constipation.

Laparoscopic Posterolateral Rectopexy for the Treatment of Patients With a Full Thickness Rectal Prolapse: Experience With 63 Patients and Short-term Outcomes

Purpose

Although numerous procedures have been proposed for the treatment of patients with a rectal prolapse, the most effective operation has not yet been established. Minimal rectal mobilization can prevent constipation; however, it is associated with increased recurrence rates. We describe our novel method for a laparoscopic posterolateral rectopexy, which includes rectal mobilization with a posterior-right unilateral dissection, suture fixation to the sacral promontory with a polypropylene mesh (Optilene), and a mesorectal fascia propria that is as wide as possible. The present report describes our novel method and assesses the short-term outcomes of patients.

Methods

Between June 2014 and June 2017, 63 patients (28 males and 35 females) with a full-thickness rectal prolapse underwent a laparoscopic posterolateral (LPL) rectopexy. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical characteristics and postoperative complications in those patients. The outcome of surgery was determined by evaluating the answers on fecal incontinence questionnaires, the results of anal manometry preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively, the patients’ satisfaction scores (0–10), and the occurrence of constipation.

Results

No recurrence was reported during follow-up (3.26 months), and 3 patients reported postoperative complications (wound infection, postoperative sepsis, which was successfully treated with conservative management, and retrograde ejaculation). Compared to the preoperative baseline, fecal incontinence at three months postoperatively showed an overall improvement. The mean patient satisfaction score was 9.55 ± 0.10, and 8 patients complained of persistent constipation.

Conclusion

LPL rectopexy is a safe, effective method showing good functional outcomes by providing firm, solid fixation for patients with a full-thickness rectal prolapse.

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.

High-grade hemorrhoids requiring surgical treatment are common after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

Purpose

To describe patients developing grade III and IV hemorrhoids requiring surgery after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and to explore the relationship between developing such hemorrhoids and recurrence of rectal prolapse after LVMR.

Methods

All consecutive patients receiving LVMR at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands, between 2004 and 2013 were analyzed. Kaplan–Meier estimates were calculated for recurrences.

Results

A total of 420 patients underwent LVMR. Sixty-five of these patients (actuarial 5-year incidence 24.3, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 18.6–30.0) developed symptomatic grade III/IV hemorrhoids requiring stapled or excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Re-do surgery for recurrent grade III/IV hemorrhoids was required for 15 of the 65 patients (actuarial 5-year recurrence rate 40.6, 95 % CI 23.2–58.0) after the primary hemorrhoidectomy. Three of the 65 patients developed an external rectal prolapse (ERP) recurrence and eight an internal rectal prolapse (IRP) recurrence. This generated a 5-year recurrence rate of 25.3 % (95 % CI 0–53.9) for ERP recurrence and 24.4 % (95 % CI 9.1–39.7) for IRP recurrence. The rest of the LVMR cohort not receiving additional surgery for hemorrhoids (n = 355) showed significantly lower actuarial 5-year ERP (0.8 %, p = 0.011) and IRP (11 %, p = 0.020) recurrence rates.

Conclusion

High-grade hemorrhoids requiring surgery may be common after LVMR. The development of high-grade hemorrhoids after LVMR might be considered a predictor of rectal prolapse recurrence.

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.

Ventral colporectopexy for overt rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (VR) with the use of prosthesis has been advocated for both overt rectal prolapse (ORP) and obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS). The present study reviews the short-term and functional results of laparoscopic VR.

METHOD

A search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid and Cochrane databases on all studies reporting on VR for ORP, ODS and other anatomical abnormalities of the pelvic floor from 2004 until February 2013. No language restrictions were made. All studies on VR were reviewed systematically. The main outcomes were intra-operative complications, conversion, procedure duration, short-term mortality and morbidity, length of stay, recurrence of ORP, recurrence of anatomical disorder, faecal incontinence and constipation, quality of life (QoL) score and patient satisfaction. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by three observers.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 1460 patients were eligible for analysis. The conversion rate ranged from 0 to 14.3%. No mortality was reported. The immediate postoperative morbidity rate was 8.6%. Length of stay ranged from 1 to 7 days. A significant improvement in constipation and incontinence symptoms was observed in the postoperative period for both ORP and ODS (chi-square test, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic VR is a safe and effective procedure for ORP and ODS. Longer follow-up is required, and studies comparing VR with standard rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection are not yet available.

Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Will it be the Gold Standard?

A review of the current literature is presented regarding the surgical management of full thickness rectal prolapse, comparing laparoscopic rectopexy with open abdominal operations and perineal procedures. Outcome measures include length of stay, short- and long-term outcomes and financial burdens. Current evidence suggests that laparoscopic rectopexy as treatment for full thickness rectal prolapse is a safe alternative to the other options.

Laparoscopy for pelvic floor disorders

Surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders has significantly evolved during the last decade, with increasing understanding of anatomy, pathophysiology and the minimally-invasive 'revolution' of laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic pelvic floor repair requires a thorough knowledge of pelvic floor anatomy and its supportive components before repair of defective anatomy is possible. Several surgical procedures have been introduced and applied to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. Transabdominal procedures include a variety of rectopexies with the use of sutures or prosthesis and with or without resection of redundant sigmoid colon. Unfortunately there is lack of one generally accepted standard treatment technique. This article will focus on recent advances in the management of pelvic floor disorders affecting defecation, with a brief overview of contemporary concepts in pelvic floor anatomy and different laparoscopic treatment options.

Rectal prolapse and intussusception

Rectal prolapse continues to be problematic for both patients and surgeons alike, in part because of increased recurrence rates despite several well-described operations. Patients should be aware that although the prolapse will resolve with operative therapy, functional results may continue to be problematic. This article describes the recommended evaluation, role of adjunctive testing, and outcomes associated with both perineal and abdominal approaches.

Delorme's Procedure: An Effective Treatment for a Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse in Young Patients

Purpose

Delorme's procedure is infrequently applied in young adults because of its assumed higher recurrence rate. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the efficacy of the Delorme's technique in younger adults.

Methods

Fifty-two consecutive patients were entered in our study. We followed patients for at least 30 months. Their complaints and clinical exam results were noted.

Results

Our study included 52 patients (mean age, 38.44 years; standard deviation, 13.7 years). Of the included patients, 41 (78.8%) were younger than 50 years of age, and 11 (21.1%) were older than 50 years of age. No postoperative mortalities or major complications were noted. Minor complications were seen in 5 patients (9.6%) after surgery. The mean hospital stay was 2.5 days. In the younger group (age ≤50 years), fecal incontinence was improved in 92.3% (12 out of 13 with previous incontinence) of the patients, and recurrence was seen in 9.75% (4 patients). In the older group (age >50 years), fecal incontinence was improved in 20% (1 out of 5 with previous incontinence) of the patients, and recurrence was seen in 18.2% (2 patients). In 50% of the patients with a previous recurrence (3 out of 6 patients) following Delorme's procedure as a secondary procedure, recurrence was observed.

Conclusion

Delorme's procedure, especially in younger patients, is a relatively safe and effective treatment and should not be restricted to older frail patients. This procedure may not be suitable for recurrent cases.

Obstructive defecation syndrome: 19 years of experience with laparoscopic resection rectopexy

BACKGROUND

In obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) combinations of morphologic alterations of the pelvic floor and the colorectum are nearly always evident. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) aims at restoring physiological function. We present the results of 19 years of experience with this procedure in patients with ODS.

METHODS

Between 1993 and 2012, 264 patients underwent LRR for ODS at our department. Perioperative and follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

The female/male ratio was 25.4:1, mean age was 61.3 years (±14.3 years), and mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.2 kg/m(2) (±4.2 kg/m(2)). The pathological conditions most frequently found in combination were a sigmoidocele plus a rectocele (n = 79) and a sigmoidocele plus a rectal prolapse or intussusception (n = 69). The conversion rate was 2.3 % (n = 6). The mortality rate was 0.75 % (n = 2), the rate of complications requiring surgical re-intervention was 4.3 % (n = 11), and the rate of minor complications was 19.8 % (n = 51). Follow-up data were available for 161 patients with a mean follow-up of 58.2 months (±47.1 months). Long-term results showed that 79.5 % of patients (n = 128) reported at least an improvement of symptoms. In cases of a sigmoidocele (n = 63 available for follow-up) or a rectal prolapse II°/III° (n = 72 available for follow-up), the improvement rates were 79.4 % (n = 50) and 81.9 % (n = 59), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LRR is a safe and effective procedure. Our perioperative results and long-term functional outcome strengthen the evidence regarding benefits of LRR in patients with an outlet obstruction. However, careful patient selection is essential.

Outcome analysis of elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse

PURPOSE

For treatment of rectal prolapse, abdominal approaches are generally offered to younger patients, whereas perineal, less invasive procedures are considered more beneficial in the elderly. The aim of this study was to analyze whether laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) is suitable for older patients.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Patients who received LRR for rectal prolapse were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. Perioperative and long-term outcome were compared between patients <75 years old (group A) and ≥75 years old (group B).

RESULTS

Of 154 patients, 111 were in group A and 43 in group B. There was one conversion that occurred in group B. Overall mortality rate was 1.3% (n = 2). Both patients were in group B (group B, 4.7%; p = 0.079). Differences in major and minor complications between the groups were not significant. Rates of improvement for incontinence were 62.7% (group A) and 66.7% (group B; p = 0.716); for constipation, the rates were 78.9% (group A) and 73.3% (group B; p = 0.832). All recurrences occurred in group A (n = 10; overall, 10.3%; group A, 13%). After exclusion of patients who had previously received perineal prolapse surgery, recurrence rate was 3.3% overall (group A, 4.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the benefits of LRR for rectal prolapse in elderly patients. Age per se is not a contraindication for LRR. Elderly patients encounter complications slightly more frequently (although not statistically significant) than younger patients. Therefore, a very careful patient selection in the elderly is of paramount importance. However, the long-term outcome does not seem to differ between younger and elderly patients.

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.

Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy: An Effective Treatment for Complete Rectal Prolapse

BACKGROUND

The study was undertaken to validate the efficacy of laparoscopic suture rectopexy as the treatment modality of choice for complete prolapse of rectum.

METHODS

Data was prospectively collected and analyzed on 36 patients who underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy for full thickness rectal prolapse between May 2006 to May 2008. There were 10 male and 26 female patients in this study with a mean age of 43.5 years. The pre and postoperative course of each patient was followed up with attention paid to ano-rectal manometery pressures, first bowel movement, hospital stay, duration of surgery, faecal incontinence, constipation, recurrence and morbidity. Mean follow up period was 12 months (range 1-24 months).

RESULT

One patient had conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery. while another had recurrence of prolapse in the follow up period. Mean duration of surgery was 115 (range 100-150) minutes. Postoperatively, the mean time for the first bowel movement was 40 (range 24-64) hours. Mean hospital stay was five (range 4-7) days. There was no significant postoperative complication except for one port site infection and one pelvic collection. Of the 20 patients who had varying degree of incontinence preoperatively, 16 (80%) showed improvement after surgery. Constipation was present in 15 (41%) patients preoperatively. Nine of these 15 patients (60%) improved as regards constipation after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic suture rectopexy is both safe and effective operation for the management of complete prolapse rectum. The procedure carries minimal morbidity and helps improve the problems of incontinence and constipation.

Rectal prolapse: review according to the personal experience

The aim of treatment of rectal prolapse is to control the prolapse, restore continence, and prevent constipation or impaired evacuation. Faced with a multitude of options, the choice of an optimal treatment is difficult. It is best tailored to patient and surgeon. Numerous procedures have been described and are generally categorized into perineal or abdominal approaches. In general, an abdominal procedure has associated with lower recurrence and better functional outcome than perineal procedures. The widespread success of laparoscopic surgery has led to the development of laparoscopic procedures in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse. In Korea, there has been a trend toward offering perineal procedures because of the high incidence of rectal prolapse in young males and its being a lesser procedure. Delorme-Thiersch procedure has appeal as a lesser procedure for patients of any age or risk category, especially for elderly low-risk patients, patients with constipation or evacuation difficulties, young males, and patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids or mucosal prolapse. Laparoscopic suture rectopexy is recommended for either low-risk female patients or patients who are concerned with postoperative aggravation of their incontinence.

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.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse is safe and effective in the elderly. Does this make perineal procedures obsolete?

AIM

Perineal approaches are considered to be the 'gold standard' in treating elderly patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) because morbidity and mortality with perineal approaches are lower compared with transabdominal approaches. Higher recurrence rates and poorer function are tolerated as a compromise. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) in elderly patients, compared with perineal approaches.

METHOD

The prospectively collected databases from two tertiary referral pelvic floor units were interrogated to identify outcome in patients of 80 years of age and older with full-thickness ERP treated by LVR. The primary end-points were age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) grade, mortality, and major and minor morbidity. Secondary end-points were length of stay (LOS) and recurrence.

RESULTS

Between January 2002 and December 2008, 80 [median age 84 (80-97) years] patients underwent rectopexy. The mean ± standard deviation ASA grade was 2.44 (± 0.57) (two patients were ASA grade I, 42 patients were ASA grade II, 35 patients were ASA grade III and one patient was ASA grade IV). The median LOS was 3 (range 1-37) days. There was no mortality, and 10 (13%) patients had complications (one major and nine minor). At a median follow-up of 23 (2-82) months, two (3%) patients had developed a recurrent full-thickness prolapse.

CONCLUSION

LVR is a safe procedure for using to treat full-thickness ERP in elderly patients. Mortality, morbidity and hospital stay are comparable with published rates for perineal procedures, with a 10-fold lower recurrence.

Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is defined as a protrusion of the rectum beyond the anus. Although rectal prolapse was recognized as early as 1500 BC, the optimal surgical procedure is still debated. The varied operative procedures available for treating rectal prolapsed can be confusing. The aim of treatment is to control the prolapse, restore continence, and prevent constipation or impaired evacuation. In elderly and high-risk patients, perineal approaches, such as Delorme's operation and Altemeier's operation, have been preferred, although the incidence of recurrence and the rate of persistent incontinence seem to be high when compared with transabdominal procedures. Abdominal operations involve dissection and fixation of the rectum and may include a rectosigmoid resection. From the late twentieth century, the laparoscopic procedure has been applied to the treatment of rectal prolapse. Current laparoscopic surgical techniques include suture rectopexy, stapled rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy with artificial material, and resection of the sigmoid colon with colorectal anastomosis with or without rectopexy. The choice of surgery depends on the status of the patient and the surgeon's preference.

Laparoscopic mesh rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse in children: a new simplified technique

PURPOSE

Rectal prolapse in children without underlying conditions is usually a self-limiting problem and requires no surgical treatment. For children with persistent rectal prolapse, a variety of surgical procedures have been described with success. Recently, there are many reports addressing the successful use of different laparoscopic approaches for complete rectal prolapse. We present a novel simplified laparoscopic technique for management of those patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results that can be achieved by using this technique in management of persistent complete rectal prolapse in children.

METHODS

We reviewed the reports of 680 patients with primary complete and partial rectal prolapse over the period from August 2000 to August 2008. Fifty-two patients with complete primary rectal prolapse refractory to medical treatment for 2 years underwent a novel simplified technique for laparoscopic mesh rectopexy.

RESULTS

Conservative management was successful with no recurrences in 628 patients (92.4%) while 52 (7.6%) patients did not respond to conservative management at a median follow-up period of 2 years. They were 35 males and 17 females. Their ages ranged from 2 to 14 years (mean 6). All patients were subjected to laparoscopic mesh rectopexy successfully without any conversion. The mean duration of surgery was 40 min. No intraoperative complications were reported, but one patient developed postoperative constipation that responded well to conservative treatment. The mean postoperative hospitalization was 2 days. Two cases were lost to follow-up, while the others were available for 36 months. There was no recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy mesh rectopexy is safe, rapid, effective technique. It improved functional outcome without recurrence. It is associated with minimal postoperative pain and short hospital stay with excellent cosmoses.

Comparison of perineal operations with abdominal operations for full-thickness rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

We can divide surgery for rectal prolapse into two broad categories: abdominal and perineal. However, few studies compare the long-term outcomes and quality of life among operations for full-thickness rectal prolapse. The purpose of this study was to compare abdominal (AO) versus perineal (PO) procedures for the treatment of full-thickness rectal prolapse regarding recurrence rate, incontinence, constipation, and quality of life.

METHODS

Records of 177 operations from 1995 to 2001 were reviewed retrospectively. A telephone survey was attempted for all. Seventy-five (42%) responded to the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), KESS Constipation Score (KESS-CS), and SF-36 Quality of Life Score. Appropriate statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

For the 122 AO and 55 PO, there were no deaths. Mean follow-up was similar (PO 3.1 vs. AO 3.9 years; P = 0.306). As expected the PO patients were older (mean 69 vs. 55 years) and had higher ASA scores. Those undergoing PO had less procedural blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, and dietary restriction. The PO group also scored worse on the physical component of SF-36 (PO 33 vs. AO 39.6; P = 0.034). However, the rate of recurrent prolapse was significantly higher for the PO (PO 26.5% vs. AO 5.2%; P < 0.001). Complications, CCIS, KESS-CS, and SF-36 mental component were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In full-thickness rectal prolapse, elderly, sick patients are selected for a perineal operation. The morbidity, functional outcomes, and quality of life are acceptable. However, the high recurrence rates make the perineal operation a second-best choice for younger, healthy patients.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse improves constipation and avoids de novo constipation

OBJECTIVE

Abdominal rectopexy is ideal for otherwise healthy patients with rectal prolapse because of low recurrence, yet after posterior rectopexy, half of the patients complain of severe constipation. Resection mitigates this dysfunction but risks a pelvic anastomosis. The novel nerve-sparing ventral rectopexy appears to avoid postero-lateral rectal dissection denervation and thus postoperative constipation. We aimed to evaluate our functional results with laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

METHOD

Consecutive rectal prolapse patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy were prospectively assessed (Wexner Constipation and Faecal Incontinence Severity Index scores) pre-, 3 months postoperatively, and late (> 12 months).

RESULTS

Sixty-five consecutive patients with external rectal prolapse (median age 72 years, 34% > 80 years, median follow up 19 months) underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. There was one recurrence (2%) and one conversion. Morbidity (17%) and mortality (0%) were low. Median operating time was 140 min and median length of stay 2 days. At 3 months, constipation was improved in 72% and mildly induced in 2% (median pre-and postoperative Wexner scores 9 vs 4, P < 0.0001). Continence was improved in 83% and mild incontinence was induced or worsened in 5% (median pre- and postoperative incontinence score 40 vs 4, P < 0.0001). Significant improvement in both constipation and incontinence (P < 0.0001) remained at median 24 months late follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Ventral rectopexy has a recurrent prolapse rate of < 5%, similar to that of posterior rectopexy. Its correction of preoperative constipation and avoidance of de novo constipation appear superior to historical functional results of posterior rectopexy. A laparoscopic approach allows low morbidity and short hospital stay, even in those patients over 80 years of age in whom a perineal approach is usually preferred for safety.

Functional outcome after perineal stapled prolapse resection for external rectal prolapse

Background

A new surgical technique, the Perineal Stapled Prolapse resection (PSP) for external rectal prolapse was introduced in a feasibility study in 2008. This study now presents the first results of a larger patient group with functional outcome in a mid-term follow-up.

Methods

From December 2007 to April 2009 PSP was performed by the same surgeon team on patients with external rectal prolapse. The prolapse was completely pulled out and then axially cut open with a linear stapler at three and nine o'clock in lithotomy position. Finally, the prolapse was resected stepwise with the curved Contour^® Transtar™ stapler at the prolapse's uptake. Perioperative morbidity and functional outcome were prospectively measured by appropriate scores.

Results

32 patients participated in the study; median age was 80 years (range 26-93). No intraoperative complications and 6.3% minor postoperative complications occurred. Median operation time was 30 minutes (15-65), hospital stay 5 days (2-19). Functional outcome data were available in 31 of the patients after a median follow-up of 6 months (4-22). Preoperative severe faecal incontinence disappeared postoperatively in 90% of patients with a reduction of the median Wexner score from 16 (4-20) to 1 (0-14) (P < 0.0001). No new incidence of constipation was reported.

Conclusions

The PSP is an elegant, fast and safe procedure, with good functional results.

Trial registration

ISRCTN68491191

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.

Laparoscopy for benign colorectal diseases

The applicability of laparoscopy to many complex intraabdominal colorectal procedures continues to expand, and has been shown to be feasible and safe in experienced hands. Data are available on the elderly, rectal prolapse, diverticulitis, Hartman's takedown, small bowel obstruction, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis. Clinically relevant advantages have been clearly demonstrated in selected patient populations. Laparoscopic surgery for benign colorectal disease should be considered in patients suitable for this approach to an abdominal operation.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy for rectal prolapse: a prospective cohort study on feasibility and safety

Robotic systems may be particularly supportive for procedures requiring careful pelvic dissection and suturing in the Douglas pouch, as in surgery for rectal prolapse. Studies reporting robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy for rectal prolapse, however, are scarce. This prospective cohort study evaluated the outcome of this technique up to one year after surgery. From January 2005 to June 2006, 15 consecutive patients with a rectal prolapse, either with or without a concomitant rectocele or enterocele, underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy with support of the da Vinci robotic system. A prospective cohort study was performed on operating times, blood loss, intra-operative and post-operative complications, and outcome at a minimum of one year after surgery. Median age at time of operation was 62 years (33-72) and median body mass index 24.9 (20.9-33.9). Median robot set-up time was 10 min (3-15) and median skin-to-skin operating time was 160 min (120-180). No conversions to open surgery were necessary. No in-hospital complications occurred and there was no mortality. Median hospital stay was four days (2-9). During one year follow-up, two patients needed surgical reintervention. One patient was operated for recurrent enterocele and rectocele one week after surgery. In another patient an incisional hernia at the camera port occurred three months after surgery. At one year after surgery, 87% of patients claimed to be satisfied with their postoperative result. Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy proved to be an effective technique with favourable outcomes in most patients in this prospective series. The operating team experienced the support of the robotic system as beneficial, especially during the dissection of the rectovaginal plane and suturing in the Douglas pouch.

Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic rectopexy has become one of the most advocated treatments for full-thickness rectal prolapse, offering good functional results compared with open surgery and resulting in less postoperative pain and faster convalescence. However, laparoscopic rectopexy can be technically demanding. Once having mastered dexterity, with robotic assistance, laparoscopic rectopexy can be performed faster. Moreover, it shortens the learning curve in simple laparoscopic tasks. This may lead to faster and safer laparoscopic surgery. Robot-assisted rectopexy has been proven safe and feasible; however, until now, no study has been performed comparing costs and time consumption in conventional laparoscopic rectopexy vs. robot-assisted rectopexy.

METHODS

Our first 14 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy were reviewed and compared with 19 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic rectopexy in the same period.

RESULTS

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy did not show more complications. However, the average operating time was 39 minutes longer, and costs were euro 557.29 (or: dollars 745.09) higher.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure but results in increased time and higher costs than conventional laparoscopy.

Laparoscopic Rectopexy without Resection: A Worthwhile Treatment for Rectal Prolapse in Patients without Prior Constipation

Anterior resection with rectopexy is considered by many to be the best operation for rectal prolapse. It is feared that if sigmoid redundancy created by rectal mobilization is not resected, colonic motility (specifically constipation) could be disabling. We contend that resection is not necessary in patients without preexisting constipation. We tested this hypothesis using a laparoscopic approach to minimize hospital stay. Twelve patients were treated (eight women); mean age was 45 years (range, 25–82 years). No patient had preexisting constipation; one had irritable bowel syndrome. Three patients had prior prolapse operations. Full rectal mobilization was undertaken down to the levator hiatus; neither the mesenteric vessels nor the lateral ligaments were divided. Rectopexy to the presacral fascia was done with one to two Nurolon sutures on either side of the rectum. There were no complications; mean hospital stay was 4 days. Mean follow up was 32 months (range; 3–75 months); there have been no recurrences. Only the patient with irritable bowel syndrome developed significant constipation. We conclude: 1) rectopexy can be safely done laparoscopically, 2) resection is not required in the absence of prior constipation, and 3) rectal mobilization and rectopexy does not predispose to future constipation in these selected patients.

Clinical and functional outcome of laparoscopic posterior rectopexy (Wells) for full-thickness rectal prolapse. A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectopexy offers the advantages of the open transabdominal approach while decreasing the surgical comorbidity. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the clinical and functional outcome of laparoscopic Wells procedure for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2005, 77 patients underwent laparoscopic modified Wells procedure for full-thickness rectal prolapse. The patients were evaluated postoperatively for resolution of their prolapse and functional outcome, as well as for their satisfaction level regarding the procedure.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy was successful in all but one case. There were no major intra- or postoperative complications and the mean hospital stay was 4.9 days. Approximately half of the patients had some degree of fecal incontinence preoperatively. At long-term follow up, 89 percent experienced alleviation of symptoms. Constipation was improved in 36% of cases. Eighteen percent of the patients suffered a new onset of constipation. Recurrent prolapse was observed in one patient. Ninety percent of the patients were satisfied at long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic Wells procedure for rectal prolapse had good functional results, a low recurrence rate and proved to be a feasible and safe procedure. Postoperative constipation remains a problem, which should be solved.

Rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Rectal prolapse, or procidentia, is defined as a protrusion of the rectum beyond the anus. It commonly occurs at the extremes of age. Rectal prolapse frequently coexists with other pelvic floor disorders, and patients have symptoms associated with combined rectal and genital prolapse. Few patients, a lack of randomized trials and difficulties in the interpretation of studies of anorectal physiology have made the understanding of this disorder difficult.

METHODS OF TREATMENT

Surgical management is aimed at restoring physiology by correcting the prolapse and improving continence and constipation, whereas in patients with concurrent genital and rectal prolapse, an interdisciplinary surgical approach is required. Operation should be reserved for those patients in whom medical treatment has failed, and it may be expected to relieve symptoms. Numerous surgical procedures have been suggested to treat rectal prolapse. They are generally classified as abdominal or perineal according to the route of access. However, the controversy as to which operation is appropriate cannot be answered definitively, as the extent of a standardized diagnostic assessment and the types of surgical procedures have not been identified in published series.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This review encompasses rectal prolapse, including aetiology, symptoms and treatment. The English-language literature about rectal prolapse was identified using Medline, and additional cited works not detected in the initial search were obtained. Articles reporting on prospective and retrospective comparisons and case reports were included.

Functional results of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for symptomatic rectal intussusception

PURPOSE

This study was designed to assess the role of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for symptomatic rectal intussusception in patients who failed medical treatment. The functional outcomes of laparoscopic resection rectopexy were evaluated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal intussusception between July 1998 and November 2004 were identified. All patients with obstructed defecation failing medical treatment were included. Data were prospectively collected for the perioperative period. A follow-up questionnaire was used to assess functional outcome.

RESULTS

Between 1998 and 2004, a total of 56 patients (53 females (95 percent); age range, 23-83 years) underwent laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal intussusception. The median operative time was 123 minutes. Morbidity was 7 percent, and there was no mortality. Fifty-two patients were available for follow-up, and of these 33 (63 percent) reported an overall improvement in their function after surgery. Of 28 patients suffering constipation, 15 (53 percent) reported an improvement in bowel frequency. Sixty-seven percent of patients incontinent before surgery improved. Symptoms of incomplete evacuation resolved in 38 percent of affected patients. Thirty-six percent of patients needing to strain at stool did not have this problem after surgery. Median follow-up was 44 (range, 15-92) months.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of patients with rectal intussusception and obstructed defecation failing medical treatment is challenging. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy is an option that might offer symptomatic relief and improved function. Further studies are required to define the selection criteria to optimize the outcome in this patient group.

Technical and functional results after laparoscopic rectopexy to the promontory for complete rectal prolapse. Prospective study in 54 consecutive patients

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse offers short-term advantages compared with operations performed by laparotomy. The aim of this prospective study was to report technical and functional outcome after laparoscopic rectopexy to the promontory in consecutive patients operated on by a single surgeon.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From May 1996 to July 2004, 54 consecutive patients (47 women), median age 53 years (range: 16-84 years), underwent laparoscopic rectopexy to the promontory for complete rectal prolapse. Preoperative evaluation included physical examination, dynamic videoproctography and, in patients with constipation, colonic transit time (with radiopaque markers). Postoperative evaluation included the same examinations and a simple global quality-of-life questionnaire.

RESULTS

Conversion to laparotomy was required for three patients during the learning curve. Median duration of operation was 157 minutes (range: 50-370). There was no mortality and morbidity was 5.5% (brachial plexus palsy in two patients and urinary tract infection in one). Median hospital stay was 3.5 days (range: 1-11). There were 4 recurrences (7.4%). Functional outcome at 12 months showed the presence of constipation in 20.3% of patients (persistence in eight and de novo in three) and the presence of outlet obstruction in 25.9% of patients (persistence in six and de novo in eight). Anal continence improved in 72.4% of the 29 patients who complained of this symptom. The global quality-of-life questionnaire showed a satisfactory result in 96% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic rectopexy to the promontory is a safe and efficient procedure to treat complete rectal prolapse; morbidity is low. Functional outcome is at least equivalent to that obtained with open procedures in terms of continence, constipation and outlet obstruction.

Laparoscopic rectal prolapse surgery combined with short hospital stay is safe in elderly and debilitated patients

BACKGROUND

We report the results of patients treated from January 2000 to June 2004 for full-thickness rectal prolapse with trans-abdominal surgery in Helsinki.

METHODS

Sixty-five of 75 patients were treated laparoscopically, with a 6% conversion rate. Ten patients were operated on openly. Half of the patients were scored as American Society for Anesthesiologists III or IV.

RESULTS

The operation time was similar in the laparoscopic and the open rectopexy procedures (p = 0.15), whereas laparoscopic resection rectopexy was more time-consuming compared to the open procedure (p = 0.007). Intraoperative bleeding during laparoscopic surgery was minimal in comparison to open surgery (p = 0.006). Patients treated laparoscopically had a shorter median hospital stay than those treated with an open procedure (rectopexy, 3 and 7 days, respectively; resection rectopexy, 4 and 7.5 days, respectively) (p < 0.00001). There was no mortality and minor morbidity. During follow-up, there were two prolapse recurrences. All surgical techniques improved fecal continence considerably. Eighty-four percent of rectopexy patients and 92% of resection rectopexy patients considered the surgical outcome to be excellent or good.

CONCLUSIONS

Both rectopexy and resection rectopexy cure prolapse with good results and can be performed safely in older and debilitated patients. The laparoscopic approach enables a shortened hospital stay and is well tolerated in elderly patients.

[Rectal prolapse. Abdominal or perineal approach? Current situation]

Rectal prolapse is a major challenge for the surgeon who has to resolve the anatomical problem and the functional disturbances in the same procedure. Abdominal procedures are the most appropriate in young patients, and the most common technique is rectopexia with or without resection. The use of mesh or sutures provides the same results and the choice depends on the surgeon's preference. Laparoscopic surgery has been demonstrated to have similar efficacy to conventional surgery and may become the option of the future. The perineal approach is the best option in elderly patients and in those with associated morbidity; the Delorme technique is simple to carry out, but rectosigmoidectomy provides better results.

Long-term outcome after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repair (LR) of rectal prolapse is potentially associated with earlier recovery and lower perioperative morbidity, as compared with open transabdominal repair (OR). Data on the long-term recurrence rate and functional outcome are limited.

METHODS

Perioperative data on rectal prolapse in relation to all LRs performed between December 1991 and April 2004 were prospectively collected. The LR patients were matched by age, gender, and procedure type with OR patients who underwent surgery during the same period. Patients with previous complex abdominal surgery or a body mass index exceeding 40 were excluded from the study. Data on recurrence rate, bowel habits, continence, and satisfaction scores were collected using a telephone survey.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients (age, 56.8 +/- 18.1 years; female, 87%) underwent attempted LR. An operative complication deferred repair in two cases. Among the 111 patients, 42 had posterior mesh fixation, and 67 had sutured rectopexy (32 patients with sigmoid colectomy for constipation). Eight patients (7.2%) had conversion to laparotomy. Matching was established for 86 patients. The LR patients had a shorter hospital stay (mean, 3.9 vs 6.0 days; p < 0.0001). The 30-day reoperation and readmission rates were similar for the two groups. The rates for recurrence requiring surgery were 9.3% for LR and 4.7% for OR (p = 0.39) during a mean follow-up period of 59 months. An additional seven patients in each group reported possible recurrence by telephone. Postoperatively, 35% of the LR patients and 53% of the OR patients experienced constipation (p = 0.09). Constipation was improved in 74% of the LR patients and 54% of the OR patients, and worsened, respectively, in 3% and 17% (p = 0.037). The postoperative incontinence rates were 30% for LR and 33% for OR (p = 0.83). Continence was improved in 48% of the LR patients and 35% of the OR patients, and worsened, respectively, in 9% and 18% (p = 0.22). The mean satisfaction rates for surgery (on a scale of 0 to 10) were 7.3 for the LR patients and 8.1 for the OR patients (p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

The hospital stay is shorter for LR than for OR. Both functional results and recurrent full-thickness rectal prolapse were similar for LR and OR during a mean follow-up period of 5 years.