Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Medical Management of 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.

Utilization of Rectal Examinations Before Magnetic Resonance Defecography Studies

IMPORTANCE

More information is needed to guide referring subspecialists on the appropriate patient evaluation before magnetic resonance defecography (MRD).

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate how often health care providers perform digital rectal examination (DRE) before ordering MRD to investigate causes of bowel and pelvic floor complaints.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort review, including MRD performed on female patients at an integrated health care system from 2016 through 2020. The primary outcome was the presence or absence of documented rectal examination in the year before defecography by the referring provider or 6 months prior by a primary care physician or pelvic floor physical therapist. We hypothesized that the overall rate of rectal examination would be high and unaffected by the referring provider's subspecialty.

RESULTS

Three hundred-four defecography tests were performed, with 209 patients (68.8%) referred by gastroenterology providers and 95 (31.2%) from other specialties. Gastroenterologists performed DRE in 32.8% of patients, in contrast to 84.4% of patients referred by other specialties ( P < 0.001). When comparing subspecialties that most commonly refer patients for MRD (gastroenterology, colorectal surgery and urogynecology), there was a statistically significant difference between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons ( P < 0.001) as well as urogynecologists ( P < 0.001) but no difference in the rate of rectal examination between colorectal surgeons and urogynecologists ( P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

At our single integrated health system, the rate of DRE before MRD testing varied significantly by specialty. Our findings highlight the need for better understanding of DRE utility in the algorithms for evaluation of bowel and pelvic floor disorders.

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.

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.

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.

Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse: A 10-Year Experience at a Single Institution

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion