Abdominal Approaches to Rectal Prolapse

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

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

Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In elderly patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse (EFTRP), the exact differences in postoperative recurrence and functional outcomes between laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and perineal stapler resection (PSR) have not yet been investigated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicenter study on 330 elderly patients divided into LVMR group (n = 250) and PSR (n = 80) from April 2012 to April 2019. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery by Wexner incontinence scale, Altomare constipation scale, and patient satisfaction questionnaire. The primary outcomes were incidence and risk factors for EFTRP recurrence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative incontinence, constipation, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

LVMR was associated with fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001), lower prolapse recurrence (p < 0.001), lower Wexner incontinence score (p = 0.03), and lower Altomare's score (p = 0.047). Furthermore, LVMR demonstrated a significantly higher surgery-recurrence interval (p < 0.001), incontinence improvement (p = 0.019), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) than PSR. Three and 13 patients developed new symptoms in LVMR and PSR, respectively. The predictors for prolapse recurrence were LVMR (associated with 93% risk reduction of recurrence, OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.03-0.347, p = 0.001), symptom duration (prolonged duration was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, OR 1.131, 95% CI 1.036-1.236, p = 0.006), and length of prolapse (increased length was associated with a high recurrence risk (OR = 1.407, 95% CI = 1.197-1.655, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.

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.

Current diagnostic tools and treatment modalities for rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus. It is a rare condition, and only affects 0.5% of the general population. Multiple treatment modalities have been described, which have changed significantly over time. Particularly in the last decade, laparoscopic and robotic surgical approaches with different mobilization techniques, combined with medical therapies, have been widely implemented. Because patients have presented with a wide range of complaints (ranging from abdominal discomfort to incomplete bowel evacuation, mucus discharge, constipation, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence), understanding the extent of complaints and ruling out differential diagnoses are essential for choosing a tailored surgical procedure. It is crucial to assess these additional symptoms and their severities using preoperative scoring systems. Additionally, radiological and physiological evaluations may explain some vague symptoms and reveal concomitant pelvic disorders. However, there is no consensus on or standardization of the optimal extent of dissection, type of procedure, and materials used for rectal fixation; this makes providing maximum benefits to patients with minimal complications difficult. Even recent publications and systematic reviews have not recommended the most appropriate treatment options. This review explains the appropriate diagnostic tools for different conditions and summarizes the current treatment approaches based on existing literature and expert opinions.

Comprehensive anatomy of the superior hypogastric plexus and its relationship with pelvic surgery landmarks: defining the safe zone around the promontory

BACKGROUND

Pelvic surgery carries an inherent risk of autonomic nerve injury leading to genitourinary and bowel dysfunction due to the close proximity of the superior hypogastric plexus (SHP). The aim of this study was to define the detailed anatomy of SHP and identify its relationship with the vascular landmarks and ureters for pelvic autonomic nerve-preserving surgery.

METHODS

A cadaveric study on the detailed anatomy of the SHP was conducted in our surgical anatomy research unit. Between 02/2019 and 10/2019, macroscopic anatomical dissections were performed on 45 fresh adult cadavers (39 male, 6 female). Distances between the SHP, major vascular structures, and other anatomical landmarks were measured.

RESULTS

Three types of SHP morphology were observed: mesh (64.8%), single nerve (24.4%), and fiber (10.8%). SHP bifurcation was located inferior to the aortic bifurcation in all cases; however, it was observed cranial to the promontory in 80% of the cases, whereas 18% were caudally and 2% were over the promontory. The closest vessels to the left and right of the SHP bifurcation were the left common iliac vein (LCIV) (86.2%, the mean distance was 8.49 ± 7.97 mm) and the right internal iliac artery (RIIA) (48.2%, mean distance was 13.4 ± 9.79 mm), respectively. At SHP bifurcation level, the lateral edge of the SHP was detected on the LCIV in 22 cases and on the RIIA in 10 cases for the left and right side of the plexus, respectively. The distance between the SHP bifurcation and the ureter was 27.9 mm on the right and 24.2 mm on the left. The width of the left (LHN) and right hypogastric nerves (RHN) were 4.35 mm and 4.62 mm at 2 cm below the SHP bifurcation, respectively. LHN was on the vascular structures in 13 cases, whereas RHN in only 1 case, 2 cm below the SHP bifurcation.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the location of the SHP, including its relationship with important anatomical landmarks, might prevent iatrogenic injury and reduce postoperative morbidity in the pelvic surgery setting.

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).

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

External rectal prolapse is a relatively rare disease, in which male patients account for a minority. The selection of abdominal repair or perineal repair for male patients has rarely been investigated.

Methods

Fifty-one male patients receiving abdominal repair (laparoscopic ventral rectopexy) or perineal repair (Delorme or Altemeier procedures) at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between March 2013 and September 2019 were retrospectively analysed. We compared the recurrence, complication rate, post-operative defecation disorder, length of stay, and quality of life between the abdominal and perineal groups.

Results

Of the 51 patients, 45 had a complete follow-up, with a median of 48.5 months (range, 22.8–101.8 months). A total of 35 patients were under age 40 years. The complication rate associated with abdominal repair was less than that associated with perineal repair (0% vs 20.7%, P = 0.031) and the recurrence rate was also lower (9.5% vs 41.7%, P = 0.018). Multivariate analysis showed that perineal repair (odds ratio, 9.827; 95% confidence interval, 1.296–74.50; P = 0.027) might be a risk factor for recurrence. Moreover, only perineal repair significantly improved post-operative constipation status (preoperative vs post-operative, 72.4% vs 25.0%, P = 0.001). There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. No patient's sexual function was affected by the surgery.

Conclusions

Both surgical approaches were safe in men. Compared with perineal repair, the complication rate and recurrence rate for abdominal repair were lower. However, perineal repair was better able to correct constipation.

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

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Laparoscopic Sutureless Rectopexy Using a Fixation Device for Complete Rectal Prolapse

BACKGROUND

Complete rectal prolapse (CRP) commonly affects the daily life of older people and has no established operative treatment approach. We describe our simple method of laparoscopic, sutureless rectopexy, involving rectal mobilization (along with its peritoneum bilaterally) and fixation to the sacral promontory using a fixation device. We also present an analysis of short-term outcomes in patients treated using this procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 62 patients with CRP, who underwent a laparoscopic rectopexy via tack fixation, between 2004 and 2017. The peritoneum was widely attached near the site of peritoneal reflection, as in rectal cancer surgery. The hypogastric nerve was carefully detached from the front of the sacrum. Keeping the nerve intact, we lifted and mobilized the dissected rectum cranially towards the promontory, and the rectal peritoneum was affixed to the sacrum by applying 2 to 3 fixed tacks bilaterally, using a fixation device.

RESULTS

The median age of the study group was 80 (10 to 91) years. All procedures were successful without serious intraoperative complications; only 1 patient required conversion to open surgery. Median values for operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative period of hospitalization were 177 (125 to 441) minutes, 5 (0 to 275) mL, and 7 (3 to 17) days, respectively. Only 6 (9.7%) patients experienced recurrence during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic tacking rectopexy performed using a fixation device for repairing CRP is a simple, safe, and sutureless procedure with no severe complications or mortality.

Imaging and Treatment of Complications of Abdominal and Pelvic Mesh Repair

Surgical mesh is used most frequently for tension-free repair of abdominal wall hernias in adults, because the rate of hernia recurrence is lower with mesh than with primary soft-tissue repair. Since the introduction of polypropylene mesh in the middle of the 20th century, many mesh materials and configurations for specific surgical procedures have been developed. In addition to abdominal wall hernia repair, mesh may be used for repair of diaphragmatic hernias, urinary incontinence in women (female slings), genitourinary prolapse (vaginal mesh and sacrocolpopexy), rectal prolapse (rectopexy), and postprostatectomy male urinary incontinence (male slings). General mesh repair complications include chronic pain; fluid collections such as seromas, hematomas, and abscesses; adhesions that may lead to intestinal blockage; erosion into solid or hollow viscera including enterocutaneous fistulizing disease; and mesh failure characterized by mesh shrinkage, detachment, and migration with repair malfunction. Several mesh complications are often diagnosed with imaging, primarily with CT and less frequently with MRI and US, despite variable mesh visibility at imaging. This article reviews the common surgical mesh applications in the abdomen and pelvis, discusses imaging of mesh repair complications, and provides complication treatment highlights.^©RSNA, 2020.

Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis arising from chronic rectal prolapse in the setting of spinal cord injury

A 45-year-old man had recurrent presentations with pleuritic chest pain and shortness of breath. Four months prior, he had developed cauda equina syndrome from a spinal epidural abscess in the setting of intravenous drug use, complicated by lasting neurological deficits and a rectal prolapse. On his final presentation, blood cultures taken in the absence of antibiotics grew Enterococcus faecalis from multiple sets. A transoesophageal echocardiogram confirmed tricuspid valve endocarditis. He recovered well post-targeted long-term antibiotics. Endoscopy confirmed a chronic rectal prolapse with multiple ulcers and was hypothesised as the source of bacteraemia. He subsequently underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy. This uncommon sequela of rectal prolapse highlights several issues, including the management of neurogenic bowel dysfunction following spinal cord injury and the importance of early prolapse recognition and management. Finally, appropriate collection of blood cultures and correct use of echocardiography are critical steps in investigating infective endocarditis.

Abdominal ventral rectopexy with colectomy for obstructed defecation syndrome: An alternative option for selected patients

BACKGROUND

Abdominal ventral rectopexy (AVR) with colectomy is controversial in the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Literature data on this technique for ODS are very limited.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of AVR with colectomy for selected patients with ODS.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent AVR with colectomy for ODS were identified prospectively from 2016 to 2017 in our department. Patient demographics, perioperative surgical results, and postoperative follow-up outcomes were collected and analyzed. Long-term follow-up was evaluated with standardized questionnaires. The severity of symptoms was assessed by the objective Wexner Constipation Score (WCS) and ODS Score. The quality of life was assessed by the Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score. Functional outcome was compared pre- and post-operatively for each patient. The primary outcomes were determined by the improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures were operating time, postoperative length of stay, morbidity and mortality, improvement of pelvic floor structure, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Four patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery, and two patients underwent a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. The mean operating time for the robotic approach was 243 min (range 160–300 min), and the mean operating time for the laparoscopic approach was 230 min (range 220-240 min). The mean postoperative length of stay was 8.2 d (range 6-12 d). There was no conversion to open procedure and no postoperative mortality. No urinary retention, wound infection, prolonged ileus, pelvic infection and anastomosis leakage occurred. Six patients were followed up for 36 mo. The WCS, ODS, and Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score improved significantly postoperatively (P < 0.05). The WCS and ODS scores showed the best remission and stabilization at 6 to 12 mo after surgery. There was no recurrence or novel constipation after surgery. None of the patients used laxative medication.

CONCLUSION

Robotic and laparoscopic-assisted ventral rectopexy with colectomy is a safe and effective procedure for selected patients with ODS. However, comprehensive preoperative evaluation and careful patient selection are essential.

Rectal Prolapse Repair with Abdominal Fixation Under Sedation and Local or Epidural Anesthesia: Prospective Pilot Study in 10 Elderly Subjects

Background: Rectal prolapse (RP) is primarily a disease of the elderly, where treatment may be associated with significant postoperative morbidity including that related to anesthesia. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a novel abdominal approach to RP repair under sedation and local anesthesia and to assess short- and long-term clinical outcomes in elderly patients (>70 years). Design Settings: This is a prospective pilot study with 10 patients using a novel RP repair. The anesthesia type was local or epidural with sedation. Follow-up was done at 30 days, 12, and 24 months. Patients: Patients were men and women >70 years of age with RP. Main Outcome Measures: (1) Feasibility: successful completion of RP repair using the novel abdominal approach with laparoscopic assistance. (2) Safety: safety was measured by the incidence of the intraoperative complications (bowel perforation, organ injury, and bleeding requiring blood transfusion). (3) Sedation and local anesthesia feasibility: surgery was safely completed without patient intubation. Results: Ten female patients >70 years of age underwent RP repair using the novel abdominal approach. General anesthesia was not required in any of the 10 patients. Two patients recurred within 6 months. One of the patients with recurrence of RP subsequently underwent laparoscopic rectopexy, and the other was minimal and required no further treatment. One mortality occurred at 3 months unrelated to the procedure. No other anesthetic or surgical intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed. Limitations: This is a single-institution pilot study. Conclusions: Abdominal RP repair under sedation and regional anesthesia appears feasible and safe in elderly patients and may, in the future, provide an effective alternative to current treatment options for RP, avoiding general anesthesia. ClinicalTrial.gov registration number: NCT01980043.

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.

Clinical Outcome and Surgical Technique of Laparoscopic Posterior Rectopexy Using the Mesh With Anti-adhesion Coating

We herein present an innovative technique of laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (LPMR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse and report the clinical outcomes in our institution. Ten consecutive patients who were treated with our latest LPMR technique using mesh with an anti-adhesion coating from June 2014 to May 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were women with a mean age of 63.6 years (range, 39 to 82 y). The median operative time and blood loss volume were 197.5 minutes (range, 156 to 285 min) and 0 mL (range, 0 to 152 mL), respectively. No perioperative complications occurred, including surgical site infection, pneumonia, urinary dysfunction, and intestinal obstruction. The median follow-up duration was 768 days (range, 396 to 1150 d). During the follow-up, the cumulative incidence of full-thickness rectal prolapse and any mesh-related complications was 0. It may be possible to eliminate retroperitoneal closure using a mesh with an anti-adhesion coating. Our LPMR technique appears safe and acceptable.

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.

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.