[Laparoscopic treatment of rectal prolapse]

Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Wells Rectopexy for Complete Rectal Prolapse: Long-Term Results

BACKGROUND

There is no agreement about which laparoscopic rectopexy technique is best for treating complete rectal prolapse. Purpose was to compare functional outcome, the recurrence rate, and quality of life in patients treated with laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) versus the laparoscopic Wells rectopexy (LWR) for complete rectal prolapse.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients who presented with complete rectal prolapse. Patients were divided into two cohorts: first one had LVR and the other one had LWR. Exclusion criteria were previous major abdominal surgery, slow transit constipation, Hirschsprung's disease, inflammatory bowel disease, pregnancy, and patients on drugs that cause constipation. Patients were assessed preoperatively by clinical examination to evaluate constipation using the Wexner constipation scale (WCS), incontinence using the Wexner incontinence score (WIS), and quality of life using the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQOL). The primary outcome measures were disappearance of prolapse and recurrences. Secondary outcome parameters were operative time, complications, length of hospital stay, effect on perineal descent, functional outcome (constipation and continence), and quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients (mean age of 55 years) with complete rectal prolapse had LVR (n = 41) and LWR (n = 33). Sixty (81%) patients were females. Operative time was significantly longer in LVR (122 minutes versus 105 minutes; P = .001). Also, length of stay was significantly longer in LVR (4.5 days versus 3.7 days; P = .04). Recurrences were reported in 1 patient in each group. Perineal descent improved >50% in defecogram 6 months postoperatively in 79% in LVR versus 21% in LWR. In LVR, mean WCS decreased from 11.3 to 5.1 postoperatively (P < .0001), while in LWR it decreased from 8.9 to 6.9 (P = .11). Mean WIS decreased in LVR from 5.9 to 3.8, P = .01, while in LWR, it decreased from 6.6 to 2.8; P = .001. GIQOL improved from 74.4 to 124.9 in LVR and from 79.3 to 112.6 in LWR. The change in both groups was statistically significant (P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, both LVR and LWR successfully and safely corrected the prolapse and prevented recurrence in patients after long-term follow-up. Operative time and hospital length of stay are significantly shorter in LWR. High incontinence scores and age >70 are potential predictors of bad continence postoperatively. LVR appears to be more suitable for patients with a high constipation score and abnormal perineal descent.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse: The role of robotic surgery

The robotic technique as a safe approach in treatment of rectal prolapse has been widely reported during the last decade. Although there is limited clinical data regarding the benefits of robotic surgery, the safety of robotic surgery in rectal prolapse treatment has been cited by several authors. Also, the robotic approach helps overcome some of the laparoscopic approach challenges with purported advantages including improved visualization, more precise dissection, easier suturing, accurate identification of anatomic structures and fewer conversions to open surgery which can facilitate the conduct of technically challenging cases. These advantages can make robotic surgery ideally suited for minimally invasive ventral rectopexy. Currently, with greater surgeon experience in robotic surgery, the length of the procedure and the recurrence rate with the robotic approach are decreasing and short term outcomes for robotic rectal prolapse seem on par with laparoscopic and open techniques in recent studies. However, the high cost of robotic procedures is still an important issue. The benefits of a robotic approach must be weighed against the higher cost. More research is needed to better understand if the increased cost is justified by an improvement in outcomes. Also, published articles comparing long term outcomes of the robotic approach with other approaches are very limited at this time and further clinical trials are indicated to affirm the role of robotic surgery in the treatment of rectal prolapse.

Mesh erosion after laparoscopic posterior rectopexy: A rare complication

Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (LPMR) is now an accepted surgical treatment for complete rectal prolapse. It is associated with complications such as partial mucosal prolapse, fecal impaction, constipation, and rarely recurrence. Erosion of the mesh into the rectum after LPMR is very rare. We report herein the case of 40-year-old man who presented with mesh erosion into the rectum and managed successfully by the laparoscopic excision of mesh. This is probably the first such case managed by the laparoscopic approach.

Conservative treatment of intrarectal mesh migration after ventral laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse

OBJECTIVE

Ventral rectopexy is a validated treatment for rectal prolapse with a low morbidity rate but a risk of intrarectal mesh migration. The purpose of this study was to report the results of local transanal mesh excision for intrarectal mesh migration after ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

Between January 2004 and March 2011, 312 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in two hospitals. Six patients were treated for intrarectal mesh migration.

RESULTS

Delay between ventral rectopexy and the onset of symptoms was 53 months (4-124 months). All patients have symptoms. Imaging revealed a pelvic abscess in two cases. Intrarectal mesh migration was confirmed by anorectoscopy or clinical examination. Five patients were only treated by local transanal partial mesh excision, and one required a colostomy. Morbidity and mortality were zero. The median hospitalization time was 5 days (3-8 days). After a median postoperative follow-up period of 9 months (1-40 months), one recurrence was observed 2 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Local transanal mesh excision for intrarectal mesh migration after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is a feasible conservative treatment. This simple treatment produced a cure of the pelvic inflammation and closure of the fistula without compromising a more aggressive secondary treatment which was not necessary in our series.

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.

Laparoscopic management of persistent complete rectal prolapse in children

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is a relatively common condition in children. The multiplicity of surgical approaches used for rectal prolapse indicates that there is no single approach universally accepted and applicable to all cases. The laparoscopic approach promises to become the criterion standard for the management of full-thickness rectal prolapse in children. The aim of this study was to review our experience over the last 5 years and to evaluate the results that can be achieved by using laparoscopy in management of complete rectal prolapse in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty patients presented with complete rectal prolapse and fecal incontinence grades (3-4) according to Rintala scale (37 secondary to prolapse and 3 neuropathic) had been operated upon laparoscopically from August 2003 to August 2008. They were subjected to clinical examination, investigations, pre- and postoperative electromyogram activities for external sphincter, puborectalis, and pelvic floor muscles. The pathophysiologic changes for each case was identified and dealt with laparoscopically (laparoscopic suture rectopexy, laparoscopic mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic resection rectopexy, and laparoscopic levatorplasty).

RESULTS

Among the 40 children with complete rectal prolapse, 22 were males and 18 females. Their median age was 9 years (range, 4-14 years). All cases (n = 40) showed a redundant rectosigmoid junction. Additional laxity of the pelvic floor was present in 32, rectoanal intussusception in 27, anterior wall rectoanal intussusception in 3, and rectosacral hernia in 5 cases. All procedures were completed laparoscopically. The median duration of surgery was 60 minutes (range, 50-70 minutes) for suture rectopexy, 90 minutes (range, 60-110 minutes) for mesh rectopexy, 110 minutes (range, 95-160 minutes) for resection rectopexy, and 120 minutes (range, 100-150 minutes) for laparoscopic levatorplasty. No intraoperative complications occurred in this study. Median postoperative hospitalization was 3 days (range, 2-5 days). Electromyogram studies showed statistically significant improvement during rest, minimal volition, and squeezing in all cases except those children with spina bifida and meningomyelocele. The only complications were postoperative constipation and external colonic fistula. Significant improvement of the continence score was achieved in all cases. The average follow-up time was 36 months. There were no recurrences.

CONCLUSION

The use of laparoscopy in the management of complete rectal prolapse is safe, effective, and associated with improved functional outcome. It saved the patients multiple operations and is associated with minimal postoperative pain and short hospital stay.