Bowel function after laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a double-blind, randomised single-centre study

A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse

PURPOSE

Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse can be undertaken via an abdominal or a perineal approach. The present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of different abdominal and perineal procedures for rectal prolapse in terms of recurrence, complications, and improvement in fecal incontinence (FI).

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized clinical trials comparing two or more procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROB-2 tool. The main outcomes were recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse, complications, operation time, and improvement in FI.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with 728 patients were included. The follow-up ranged between 12 and 47 months. Posterior mesh rectopexy had significantly lower odds of recurrence than did the Altemeier procedure (logOR, - 12.75;  95% credible intervals, - 40.91, - 1.75), Delorme procedure (- 13.10; - 41.26, - 2.09), resection rectopexy (- 11.98; - 41.36, - 0.19), sponge rectopexy (- 13.19; - 42.87, - 0.54), and sutured rectopexy (- 13.12; - 42.58, - 1.50), but similar odds to ventral mesh rectopexy (- 12.09; - 41.7, 0.03). Differences among the procedures in complications, operation time, and improvement in FI were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior mesh rectopexy ranked best with the lowest recurrence while perineal procedures ranked worst with the highest recurrence rates.

Does Concomitant Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair at the Time of Rectopexy Impact Rectal Prolapse Recurrence Rates? A Retrospective Review of the Prospectively Collected Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Quality Improvement Database Pilot

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is reported in 30% of women presenting with rectal prolapse. Combined repair is a viable option to avoid the need for future pelvic floor interventions. However, the added impact of adding a modicum of middle compartment suspension by closing the pouch of Douglas during a rectal prolapse repair has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess the impact of middle compartment suspension on the durability of rectal prolapse repair. We also aimed to determine whether adding some form of pouch of Douglas closure to achieve middle compartment suspension leads to any improvements in the rates or severity of postoperative constipation or in the rates or severity of postoperative fecal incontinence.

DESIGN

This study was a retrospective analysis of a multicenter prospective database.

SETTING

Data were analyzed from the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Quality Improvement in Rectal Prolapse Surgery database. Deidentified surgeons at more than 20 sites (75% academic, 81% high volume) self-reported patient demographics, previous repairs, symptoms of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation, and operative details, including addition of concomitant gynecologic repairs, use of mesh, posterior or ventral dissection, and sigmoidectomy.

PATIENTS

Patients were included who underwent abdominal repair for rectal prolapse.

INTERVENTIONS

Abdominal rectopexy procedures with and without middle compartment suspension were compared. Middle compartment suspension was defined as excision and closure of the pouch of Douglas with some degree of colpopexy or culdoplasty.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of prolapse recurrence and secondary outcomes of incontinence and constipation were calculated via univariate and multivariable regression by comparing those who underwent rectopexy with and without middle compartment suspension.

RESULTS

Of the 198 patients (98% female, age 60.2 ± 15.6 years) who underwent abdominal repairs (59% robotic), 138 patients (70%) underwent some concomitant middle compartment suspension. Patients who had an added middle compartment suspension seemed to have lower early rectal prolapse recurrences. On multivariable regression to control for age, previous repairs, and the use of mesh, addition of some form of pouch of Douglas repair was associated with a decrease in short-term recurrences.

LIMITATIONS

Our data need to be interpreted cautiously. Future studies are critically needed to further explore this observation, with an a priori, prospective definition of middle compartment suspension, validated measurement of concomitant pathology, and longer follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that some middle compartment suspension at the time of rectal prolapse repair may improve short-term durability of rectal prolapse repair. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C30 .

LA REPARACIN CONCOMITANTE DEL PROLAPSO DE RGANOS PLVICOS EN EL MOMENTO DE LA RECTOPEXIA AFECTA LAS TASAS DE RECURRENCIA DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL UNA REVISIN RETROSPECTIVA DE UNA BASE DE DATOS RECOPILADA PROSPECTIVAMENTE DEL CONSORCIO SOBRE LA MEJORA DE LA CALIDAD DE TRASTORNOS DEL PISO PLVICO

ANTECEDENTES:El prolapso de órganos pélvicos se informa en el 30 % de las mujeres que presentan prolapso rectal y la reparación combinada es una opción viable para evitar la necesidad de futuras intervenciones del suelo pélvico. Sin embargo, no se ha estudiado el impacto adicional de agregar un mínimo de suspensión del compartimento medio cerrando el fonde de saco de Douglas durante una reparación de prolapso rectal.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar el impacto de la suspensión del compartimento medio con respecto a la durabilidad de la reparación del prolapso rectal. Quisimos de igual manera determinar si el agregado de algún tipo de cierre del fondo de saco de Douglas para lograr la suspensión del compartimento medio conduce a alguna mejora en las tasas o la gravedad del estreñimiento posoperatorio así como en las tasas o la gravedad de la incontinencia fecal posoperatoria.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos prospectiva.ESCENARIO:Base de datos Multicenter Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Prospective Quality Improvement. Cirujanos no identificados en >20 sitios (75% académicos, 81% de alto volumen) datos demográficos de pacientes auto informados, reparaciones previas, síntomas de incontinencia fecal y defecación obstruida, y detalles quirúrgicos, incluida la suma de reparaciones ginecológicas concomitantes, uso de malla, disección anterior o posterior y sigmoidectomía.INTERVENCIONES:Se compararon los procedimientos de rectopexia abdominal con y sin suspensión del compartimento medio). La suspensión del compartimento medio se definió como la escisión y cierre del fondo de saco de Douglas con algún grado de colpopexia o culdoplastia.RESULTADOS:El resultado principal de la recurrencia del prolapso y los resultados secundarios de incontinencia y estreñimiento se calcularon mediante regresión uni y multivariable al comparar los que fueron sometidos a rectopexia con y sin suspensión del compartimento medio.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a reparación abdominal por prolapso rectal.RESULTADOS:De los 198 pacientes (98% mujeres, edad 60,2 ± 15,6 años) sometidas a reparaciones abdominales (59% robótica), 138 (70%) fueron sometidas igualmente y de manera concomitante a alguna suspensión del compartimento medio. Los pacientes a los que se les añadió una suspensión del compartimento medio parecían tener menores recurrencias tempranas del prolapso rectal y, en la regresión multivariable para controlar la edad, las reparaciones previas y el uso de malla, la adición de alguna forma de reparación del fondo de saco de Douglas se asoció con una disminución de las recurrencias a corto plazo.LIMITACIONES:Nuestros datos deben interpretarse con cautela. Se necesitan de manera critica, estudios futuros para explorar más a fondo esta observación, con una definición prospectiva a priori de la suspensión del compartimento medio, una medición validada de la patología concomitante y un seguimiento más prolongado.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestros resultados sugieren que alguna suspensión del compartimento medio en el momento de la reparación del prolapso rectal puede mejorar la durabilidad a corto plazo de la reparación del prolapso rectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C30 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Several different procedures have been described for surgical treatment of rectal prolapse and consensus on the optimal approach has not been reached. The Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial was performed with the aim to compare the outcomes after the most common surgical approaches to rectal prolapse.

METHOD

A multicentre randomized trial was conducted from 2000 to 2009. Patients were randomized between a perineal or an abdominal approach for correction of rectal prolapse (randomization A) if eligible for any procedures. Patients considered unsuitable for random allocation were only included in randomizations B or C. Patients in randomization B (perineal group) were randomized to Delorme's or Altemeier's procedures and those in randomization C (abdominal group) to suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy. Primary outcomes were bowel function and quality of life, measured using Wexner incontinence score and RAND-36, and secondary outcomes were complications and recurrence at 3 years.

RESULTS

During the study period, 134 patients were randomized: 18 in randomization A group, 80 in randomization B group and 54 in randomization C group; of these, 122 patients underwent surgery. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. Improvements in Wexner and RAND-36 scores were seen but with no significant difference between the groups. Health change scores were significantly improved from baseline up to 1 year after surgery (P < 0.001). At 3 years, recurrence rates were two of seven patients for abdominal versus five of eight patients for perineal approach (P = 0.315), 18 of 31 patients (58 per cent) for Delorme's versus 15 of 30 patients (50 per cent) for Altemeier's (P = 0.611) and four of 19 patients (21 per cent) for suture rectopexy versus two of 21 patients (10 per cent) for resection rectopexy (P = 0.398). There were no significant differences regarding postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

For all procedures, significant improvements from baseline in health change scores were noted after surgery. Recurrence rates were higher than previously reported. Registration number: NCT04893642 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Clinical outcomes of surgical management for recurrent rectal prolapse: a multicenter retrospective study

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

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.

Preliminary Report From the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium: Large-Scale Data Collection Through Quality Improvement Initiatives to Provide Data on Functional Outcomes After Rectal Prolapse Repair

BACKGROUND

The surgical management of rectal prolapse is constantly evolving, yet numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses studying operative approaches have failed to make meaningful conclusions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to report on preliminary data captured during a large-scale quality improvement initiative to measure and improve function in patients undergoing rectal prolapse repair.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected surgical quality improvement data.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at 14 tertiary centers specializing in pelvic floor disorders from 2017 to 2019.

PATIENTS

A total of 181 consecutive patients undergoing external rectal prolapse repair were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preoperative and 3-month postoperative Wexner incontinence score and Altomare obstructed defecation score were measured.

RESULTS

The cohort included 112 patients undergoing abdominal surgery (71 suture rectopexy/56% minimally invasive, 41 ventral rectopexy/93% minimally invasive). Those offered perineal approaches (n = 68) were older (median age, 75 vs 62 y; p < 0.01) and had more comorbidities (ASA 3-4: 51% vs 24%; p < 0.01) but also reported higher preintervention rates of fecal incontinence (Wexner 11.4 ± 6.4 vs 8.6 ± 5.8; p < 0.01). Patients undergoing perineal procedures had similar incremental improvements in function after surgery as patients undergoing abdominal repair (change in Wexner, -2.6 ± 6.4 vs -3.1 ± 5.6, p = 0.6; change in Altomare, -2.9 ± 4.6 vs -2.7 ± 4.9, p = 0.8). Similarly, patients undergoing posterior suture rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy had similar incremental improvements in overall scores; however, patients undergoing ventral mesh rectopexy had a higher decrease in the need to use pads after surgery.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its retrospective data analysis and 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional outcomes improved in all of the patients undergoing prolapse surgery. Larger cohorts are necessary to show superiority among surgical procedures. Quality improvement methods may allow for systematic yet practical acquisition of information and data analysis. We call for the creation of a robust database to benefit this patient population. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B581.

REPORTE PRELIMINAR DEL CONSORCIO DE TRASTORNOS DEL PISO PLVICO RECOLECCIN DE DATOS A GRAN ESCALA MEDIANTE INICIATIVAS DE MEJORAMIENTO DE LA CALIDAD PARA PROPORCIONAR INFORMACIN SOBRE LOS RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES

ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento quirúrgico del prolapso rectal está evolucionando constantemente, sin embargo, numerosos estudios clínicos y metaanálisis que evalúan los tratamientos quirúrgicos no han logrado demostrar conclusiones significativas.OBJETIVO:Reportar datos preliminares obtenidos a gran escala durante una iniciativa de mejoramiento de la calidad para medir y mejorar la función en pacientes sometidos a reparación de prolapso rectal.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de datos recolectados prospectivamente de mejoramiento de la calidad quirúrgica.ENTORNO CLINICO:Este estudio se realizó en 14 centros terciarios especializados en trastornos del piso pélvico del 2017 al 2019.PACIENTES:Un total de 181 pacientes consecutivos sometidos a reparación de prolapso rectal externo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Escala de incontinencia de Wexner y de defecación obstruida de Altomare preoperatoria y tres meses postoperatoria.RESULTADOS:El cohorte incluyó 112 pacientes sometidos a cirugía abdominal (71 rectopexia con sutura / 56% minimally invasive, 41 rectopexia ventral / 93% minimally invasive). Aquellos a los que se les realizaron abordajes perineales (n = 68) eran mayores (edad media de 75 vs. 62, p <0,01) y tenían mayorcomorbilidades (ASA 3-4: 51% vs. 24%, p <0,01), además reportaron una mayor tasa de incontinencia fecal previo a la intervención (Wexner 11,4 ± 6,4 vs. 8,6 +/- 5,8, p <0,01). Posterior a la cirugía, los pacientes sometidos a procedimientos perineales tuvieron mejoría progresiva en la función similar que los pacientes sometidos a reparación abdominal (cambio en Wexner -2,6 ± 6,4 vs. -3,1 ± 5,6, p = 0,6; cambio en Altomare -2,9 ± 4,6 vs. -2,7 ± 4,9, p = 0,8). De manera similar, los pacientes con rectopexia posterior con sutura y rectopexia ventral con malla tuvieron mejoría progresiva similares en las escalas generales; no obstante, pacientes con rectopexia ventral con malla tuvieron una mayor disminución en la necesidad de usar paños protectores después de la cirugía.LIMITACIONES:Análisis de datos retrospectivo y seguimiento de tres meses.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados funcionales mejoraron en todos los pacientes sometidos a cirugía de prolapso. Se necesitan cohortes más grandes para demostrar superioridad entre los procedimientos quirúrgicos. Métodos de mejoramiento de la calidad pueden permitir la adquisición sistemática, pero práctica de información y análisis de datos. Hacemos un llamado para la creación de una base de datos sólida para beneficiar a esta población de pacientes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B581. (Traducción- Dr Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy (LMR) and laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) in patients with rectal prolapse.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits. Recurrence, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), surgical site infections, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome measures.

RESULTS

We identified 5 comparative studies reporting a total of 307 patients evaluating outcomes of LMR (n=160) or LPSR (n=147) in patients with rectal prolapse. LMR was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.28, P=0.009) but longer procedure time (MD: 23.93, P<0.0001) compared to LPSR. However, there was no significant difference in CCIS (MD: -1.02, P=0.50), CCCS (MD: -1.54, P=0.47), surgical site infection (OR: 1.48, P=0.71), and length of hospital stay (MD: -1.54, P=0.47) between two groups. No mesh erosion was reported in any of the included studies at maximum follow-up point. Sub-group analyses with respect to ventral mesh rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy, randomised studies, and adult patients were consistent with the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LMR seems to be associated with lower recurrence but longer procedure time compared to LPSR. Although no mesh-related complications have been reported by the included studies, no definitive conclusions can be made considering that the included studies were inadequately powered for such outcome. Future high-quality randomised studies with adequate sample size are required.

Position statement by the Pelvic Floor Society on behalf of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland on the use of mesh in ventral mesh rectopexy

The following position statement forms part of a response to the current concerns regarding use of mesh to perform rectal prolapse surgery. It highlights the actions being pursued by the Pelvic Floor Society (TPFS) regarding clinical governance in relation to ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The following are summary recommendations. Available evidence suggests that mesh morbidity for VMR is far lower than that seen in transvaginal procedures (the main subject of current concern) and lower than that observed following other abdomino-pelvic procedures for urogenital prolapse, e.g. laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. VMR should be performed by adequately trained surgeons who work within a multidisciplinary team (MDT) framework. Within this, it is mandatory to discuss all patients considered for surgery at an MDT meeting. Clinical outcomes of surgery and any complications resulting from surgery should be recorded in the TPFS-hosted national database (registry) available for this purpose; in addition, all patients should be considered for entry into ongoing and planned UK/European randomized studies where this is feasible. A move towards accreditation of UK units performing VMR will improve performance and outcomes in the long term. An enhanced programme of training including staged porcine, cadaveric and preceptorship sessions will ensure the competence of surgeons undertaking VMR. Enhanced consent forms and patient information booklets are being developed, and these will help both surgeons and patients. There is weak observational evidence that technical aspects of the procedure can be optimized to reduce morbidity rates. Suture material choice may contribute towards morbidity. The available evidence is insufficient to support the use of one mesh over another (biologic vs synthetic); however, the use of polyester mesh is associated with increased morbidity.

Epidemiological trends in surgery for rectal prolapse in England 2001-2012: an adult hospital population-based study

AIM

To analyse trends in admission and surgery for rectal prolapse in adults in England between 2001 and 2012 as well as prolapse reoperation rates.

METHOD

Analysis of data derived from a comparative longitudinal population-based cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 25 238 adults, of median age 73 [interquartile range (IQR: 58-83] years, underwent a total of 29 379 operations for rectal prolapse (mean: 2662 per annum). The female to male ratio of this group of patients was 7:1. Median length of hospital stay was 3 (IQR: 1-7) days with an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 0.9%. Total number of admissions (4950 in 2001/2002 vs 8927 in 2011/2012) and of patients undergoing prolapse surgery (2230 in 2001/2002 vs 2808 in 2011/2012) significantly increased over the study period (P < 0.001 for trends). The overall increase in prolapse surgery (of 33% overall and of 44% for elective procedures) was dwarfed by an increase in popularity of laparoscopic surgery (of 15-fold). Overall prolapse reoperation rate was 12.7%. The lowest recurrence rate was observed for elective open resection (9.1%) but this had the highest mortality (1.9%). Laparoscopic and perineal fixations were also associated with low reoperation rates (< 11%) and the lowest mortality rates, of 0.3%, when these procedures were elective. These data refute a trend towards subspecialization (by surgeon or hospital) during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Admissions for rectal prolapse increased in England between 2001 and 2012, together with increases in rectal prolapse surgery. Surgical decision making has changed over this period and may be reflected in outcome.

Polyvinylidene Fluoride Mesh Use in Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy in Patients with Obstructive Defecation Syndrome for the First Time

BACKGROUND

Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) affects quality of life of patients to a great extent by disturbing defecation. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has gained much attention in the recent years. Common synthetic used meshes have a risk of erosion for adjacent pelvic organs leading to some complications. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of LVMR using polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh in patients with ODS for the first time.Methods and Materials: In this experimental study, patients with a history of ODS and associated signs and symptoms such as descending perineum, rectocele, enterocele, intussusception, rectal prolapse or a combined disorder were recruited. The patients underwent LVMR using a PVDF mesh. They were followed using the Constipation Scoring System (CSS) score. Participants were followed up for 12 months after surgery. Complications and CSS for each patient and its changes were the main outcomes of this study.

RESULTS

Of 156 patients, 155 had a 12-month complete follow-up. Thirty-nine (25.2%) were male and 116 (74.8%) female. Mean ± SD age of participants was 45.61 ± 14.02 years. The overall complication rate was 3.87%. No major mesh-related complications were recorded. Four cases (2.58%) of trocar site hernia were reported. Also, two cases (1.29%) of postoperative bleeding occurred. CSS before the operation and 1, 3, and 12 months after it were 11.04 ± 5.93, 7.98 ± 4.85, 5.46 ± 3.70 and 4.09 ± 2.98, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Synthetic meshes might cause severe erosion in pelvic organs. However, at least in short-term follow-up, PVDF mesh seems to be safe and effective in LVMR, with the advantage of being cheaper.

Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for rectal prolapse has been implemented to reduce postoperative bowel symptoms. The preoperative-to-postoperative change in a double-blinded, randomized study comparing it to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) found no significant difference between the two procedures after one year. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term functional outcomes.

METHODS

From November 2006-January 2014, 75 patients were randomized to LVMR (n = 37) or LPSR (n = 38). In March 2017, questionnaires containing constipation symptom score (PAC-SYM), quality of life score (PAC-QoL), obstructed defecation score (ODS), Cleveland clinic constipation and incontinence scores (CCCS, CCIS) were mailed to all the patients included in the RCT. Prolapse recurrences and mesh complications were recorded.

FINDING

Sixty-nine patients were available for long-term follow-up. Questionnaires were completed by 64 patients (94.4%). The median follow-up was 6.1 years. The total PAC-QoL was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.26 (0.14-0.83) compared to the LPSR group 0.93(0.32-1.61)(P = 0.008). The total PAC-SYM was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.5 (0.21-0.87) compared to the LPSR group 1.0 (0.5-1.5)(P = 0.031). Except for CCIS, the ODS and the CCCS significantly favored the LVMR group at six years (P = 0.011 & 0.017). Only three(8.82%) patients in the LVMR group developed recurrence compared to seven(23.33%) in the LPSR group (P = 0.111).

INTERPRETATION

The long-term functional outcome after LVMR is superior to that after LPSR. Larger multicenter studies are warranted.

FUNDING

None.

Modified Gant-Miwa-Thiersch procedure (mucosal plication with anal encircling) for rectal prolapse

AIM

Rectal prolapse (RP) is usually associated with elderly women and is well recognized as having a detrimental effect on quality of life. A number of surgical procedures for RP are available, but morbidity and mortality are substantial. The Gant-Miwa-Thiersch procedure (GMT) has been frequently used for RP in Japan. However, as GMT has a high recurrence rate it is not widely used elsewhere. The aim of this study was to evaluate a modified version of GMT (mGMT) in comparison with other procedures.

METHOD

mGMT was performed under spinal or local anaesthesia in 187 patients with RP. No normal mucosa was left between the tags and lateral wounds were created in the Thiersch procedure. Morbidity, mortality and recurrence rates were recorded.

RESULTS

No serious postoperative complications and no operative deaths occurred after mGMT. Eight per cent of patients suffered from infection of the strings. The overall recurrence rate after mGMT was 7.5% with a median follow-up period of 13.8 years.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of these results, we consider that mGMT has a number of advantages: it is minimally invasive, does not require general anaesthesia, is technically simple to perform and is associated with satisfactory outcomes and low morbidity. mGMT should be considered an option for the treatment of RP in elderly patients.

Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of the predictors for recurrence

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has proved effective in the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse. The present meta-analysis aimed to determine the predictive factors of recurrence of full-thickness external rectal prolapse after LVMR.

METHODS

An organized, systematic search of electronic databases including PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochran library was conducted in adherence to PRISMA guidelines. Studies that reported the outcome of LVMR in patients with full-thickness external rectal prolapse were included according to predefined criteria. A meta-regression analysis and sub-group meta-analyses were performed to recognize the patient and technical factors that were associated with higher recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies comprising 1242 patients of a median age of 60 years were included. The median operation time was 122.3 min. Conversion to open surgery was required in 22 (1.8%) patients. The weighted mean complication rate across the studies was 12.4% (95% CI 8.4-16.4) and the weighted mean rate of recurrence of full-thickness external rectal prolapse was 2.8% (95% CI 1.4-4.3). The median follow-up duration was 23 months. Male gender (SE = 0.018, p = 0.008) and length of the mesh (SE = - 0.007, p = 0.025) were significantly associated with full-thickness recurrence of rectal prolapse. The weighted mean rates of improvement in fecal incontinence and constipation after LVMR were 79.3% and 71%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LVMR is an effective and safe option in treatment of full-thickness external rectal prolapse with low recurrence and complication rates. Male patients and length of the mesh may potentially have a significant impact on recurrence of rectal prolapse after LVMR.

Short- and long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy using biological mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective cohort study of 224 consecutive patients

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is potentially a safe and effective operation to correct pelvic organ prolapse and to treat obstructive defaecation and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. This study aimed to evaluate, in a prospective, consecutive cohort of patients, the long-term clinical outcomes following LVMR, patient-reported functional and quality of life outcomes, and urinary and sexual dysfunction.

METHOD

Data on 224 patients who underwent LVMR with Permacol™ biological mesh were collected prospectively from May 2008 to October 2016. Outcome measures were complications, recurrence, mortality, patient satisfaction, patient-reported functional and quality of life outcomes, and urinary and sexual dysfunction. Scores were compared using the two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There was no mortalities associated with LVMR in this series; complications occurred in 10.7% of patients (4.9% early, 5.8% late). Mesh-related morbidity was 0.45% and vaginal suture-related morbidity was 1.33%. Recurrence occurred in 25 patients (11.4%), 5% at 12 months, 10.7% at 5 years. Significant improvement in patient-reported functional outcomes were seen (P < 0.001) for both constipation and faecal incontinence symptoms. Furthermore, significant improvement in quality of life outcomes for patients with constipation, faecal incontinence and prolapse persisted through follow-up (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was positive for > 90% of patients during follow-up. Symptoms of stress urinary incontinence, urge incontinence and dyspareunia improved significantly postoperatively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LVMR using Permacol is associated with low morbidity and mortality, recurrence and, additionally, significantly improved constipation, faecal incontinence and prolapse functional and quality of life outcomes, with associated improvement in urogynaecological symptoms.

Surgical options for full-thickness rectal prolapse: current status and institutional choice

Full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) is generally believed to result from a sliding hernia through a pelvic fascial defect, or from rectal intussusception. The currently accepted cause is a pelvic floor disorder. Surgery is the only definitive treatment, although the ideal therapeutic option for FTRP has not been determined. Auffret reported the first FTRP surgery using a perineal approach in 1882, and rectopexy using conventional laparotomy was first described by Sudeck in 1922. Laparoscopy was first used by Bermann in 1992, and laparoscopic surgery is now used worldwide; robotic surgery was first described by Munz in 2004. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rates with FTRP surgery are an active research area and in this article we review previously documented surgeries and discuss the best approach for FTRP. We also introduce our institution's laparoscopic surgical technique for FTRP (laparoscopic rectopexy with posterior wrap and peritoneal closure). Therapeutic decisions must be individualized to each patient, while the surgeon's experience must also be considered.

Perineal resectional procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Several procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) exist. These procedures are performed via the abdominal or perineal approach. Perineal procedures for rectal prolapse involve either resection or suspension and fixation of the rectum. The present review aimed to assess the outcomes of the perineal resectional procedures including Altemeier procedure (AP), Delorme procedure (DP), and perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSR) in the treatment of CRP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the current literature for the outcomes of perineal resectional procedures for CRP was conducted. Databases queried included PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane library. The main outcomes of the review were the rates of recurrence of CRP, improvement in bowel function, and complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies involving 2647 (2390 females) patients were included in the review. The mean age of patients was 69.1 years. Recurrence of CRP occurred in 16.6% of patients. The median incidences of recurrence were 11.4% for AP, 14.4% for DP, and 13.9% for PSR. Improvement in fecal incontinence occurred in 61.4% of patients after AP, 69% after DP, and 23.5% after PSR. Complications occurred in 13.2% of patients. The median complication rates after AP, DP and PSR were 11.1%, 8.7%, and 11.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Perineal resectional procedures were followed by a relatively high incidence of recurrence, yet an acceptably low complication rate. Definitive conclusions on the superiority of any procedure cannot be reached due to the significant heterogeneity of the studies.

Outcome of a Modified Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse with the Use of a Single or Double Suture: A Case Series of 15 Patients

BACKGROUND Surgery is considered to be a mainstay of therapy for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP). Surgical procedures for FTRP have been described, but optimal treatment is still controversial. The aim of this report is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a simplified laparoscopic suture rectopexy (LSR) in a case series of 15 patients who presented with FTRP and who had postoperative follow-up for six months. CASE REPORT Fifteen patients who underwent a modified LSR at our surgical unit from September 2010 were retrospectively evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 72.5±10.9 years. All 15 patients underwent general anesthesia, with rectal mobilization performed according to the plane of the total mesorectal excision. By lifting the mobilized and dissected rectum cranially to the promontorium, the optimal point for subsequent suture fixation of the rectum was marked. The seromuscular layer of the anterior right wall was then sutured to the presacral fascia using only one or two interrupted nonabsorbable polypropylene sutures. The mean operative time was 176.2±35.2 minutes, with minimal blood loss. No moderate or severe postoperative complications were observed, and there was no postoperative mortality. One patient (6.7%) developed recurrence of rectal prolapse one month following surgery. CONCLUSIONS The advantages of this LSR procedure for the management of patients with FTRP are its simplicity, safety, efficacy, and practicality and the potential for its use in patients who can tolerate general anesthesia.