Comparison of laparoscopic rectopexy with open technique in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse: clinical and functional results

Approach to the Adult Colorectal Patient with a History of Pediatric Abdominal Surgery

Children with colorectal diseases often undergo operative management in their youth. As these patients become adult, it is important for surgeons to understand their postoperative anatomy as well as the pathophysiology of their diseases. Here, we present a description of common colorectal diseases of childhood that may have significant impact on patients' presentations as adult. We also discuss the diagnosis and management of conditions that are usually seen early in life but may present during adulthood as well.

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.

A Minimally Invasive Technique for the 1-Stage Treatment of Complex Pelvic Floor Diseases: Laparoscopic-Pelvic Organ Prolapse Suspension

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of a new single laparoscopic operation devised to relieve obstructed defecation, gynecologic and urinary symptoms in a large series of female patients with multiorgan pelvic prolapse.

METHODS

We submitted 384 female patients to laparoscopic pelvic organ prolapse suspension operation, a new technique based on suspension of the middle pelvic compartment, by using a polypropylene mesh and followed up 368 of them, with defecography performed 12 months after surgery and a standardized protocol.

RESULTS

The 368 patients were followed-up for 36.3 (±4.4) months, Recurrence rate was 4.9% for obstructed defecation syndrome and 3.3% for stress urinary incontinence. Complication rate was 2.9%. The mean period of daily activity resumption was 16.3 days (±4.8 days). Anorectal and urogynecologic symptoms and scores significantly improved after the operation (P < 0.001), with no worsening of anal continence. Incidence of postoperative fecal urgency was 0%. Postoperative defecography showed a significant (P < 0.001) improvement of all parameters in 315 patients (82%). Short Form 36 Health Survey score significantly improved after the operation (P < 0.01). An excellent/good overall Satisfaction Index was reported by 78.0% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience the Laparoscopic-Pelvic Organ Prolapse Suspension seems to be safe and effective as a 1-stage treatment of associated pelvic floor diseases. Randomized studies with an appropriate control group and longer follow-up are now needed to assess the effectiveness of this promising technique.

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.

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Ventral rectopexy to the promontory has become one of the most strongly advocated surgical treatments for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and deep enterocele. Despite its challenges, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with or without robotic assistance for selected patients can be performed with relatively minimal patient trauma thus creating the potential for same-day discharge. The aim of this prospective case-controlled study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and cost of day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with routine day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

Between February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2015, 20 consecutive patients underwent day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse or deep enterocele at Michallon University Hospital, Grenoble. Patients were selected for day case surgery on the basis of motivation, favorable social circumstances, and general fitness. One out of every two patients underwent the robotic procedure (n = 10). Demographics, technical results, and costs were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Patients from both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and technical results. Patients operated on with the robot had significantly less pain (p = 0.045). Robotic rectopexy was associated with longer median operative time (94 vs 52.5 min, p < 0.001) and higher costs (9088 vs 3729 euros per procedure, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic rectopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe, but results in longer operative time and higher costs than classical laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse and enterocele.

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.

Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults

BACKGROUND

Complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse is a lifestyle-altering disability that commonly affects older people. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying pelvic floor defects in full-thickness rectal prolapse reflects the lack of consensus regarding the best operation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different surgical repairs for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register up to 3 February 2015; it contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as well as trials identified through handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We also searched EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1947 to February 2015) and PubMed (January 1950 to December 2014), and we specifically handsearched theBritish Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to June 2014), Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to June 2014) and Colorectal Diseases (January 2000 to June 2014), as well as the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meetings (January 2000 to December 2014). Finally, we handsearched reference lists of all relevant articles to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgery for managing full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The four primary outcome measures were the number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse, number of patients with faecal incontinence and number of patients with constipation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1007 participants in this third review update. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery, and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy. One new trial compared rectopexy versus rectal mobilisation only (no rectopexy), performed with either open or laparoscopic surgery. One new trial compared different techniques used in perineal surgery, and another included three comparisons: abdominal versus perineal surgery, resection versus no resection rectopexy in abdominal surgery and different techniques used in perineal surgery.The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. Given these caveats, there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches are most effective. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more postoperative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation. Recurrence of full-thickness prolapse was greater for mobilisation of the rectum only compared with rectopexy. There were no differences in quality of life for patients who underwent the different kinds of prolapse surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The lack of high quality evidence on different techniques, together with the small sample size of included trials and their methodological weaknesses, severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Longer follow-up with current studies and larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence base and to define the optimum surgical treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Anterior rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: Technical and functional results

AIM: To assess effectiveness, complications, recurrence rate, and recent improvements of the anterior rectopexy procedure for treatment of total rectal prolapse.

METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and other relevant database were searched to identify studies. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies and original articles in English language, with more than 10 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse, with a follow-up over 3 mo were considered for the review.

RESULTS: Twelve non-randomized case series studies with 574 patients were included in the review. No surgical mortality was described. Conversion was needed in 17 cases (2.9%), most often due to difficult adhesiolysis. Twenty eight patients (4.8%) presented with major complications. Seven (1.2%) mesh-related complications were reported. Most frequent complications were urinary tract infection and urinary retention. Mean recurrence rate was 4.7% with a median follow-up of 23 mo. Improvement of constipation ranged from 3%-72% of the patients and worsening or new onset occurred in 0%-20%. Incontinence improved in 31%-84% patients who presented fecal incontinence at various stages. Evaluation of functional score was disparate between studies.

CONCLUSION: Based on the low long-term recurrence rate and favorable outcome data in terms of low de novo constipation rate, improvement of anal incontinence, and low complications rate, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy seems to emerge as an efficient procedure for the treatment of patients with total rectal prolapse.

Perineal Stapled Prolapse Resection

Perineal stapled prolapse resection is a new technique for external rectal prolapse introduced in 2007. We have done stapled perineal resection for 12 patients with full thickness rectal prolapse between January 2010 and April 2012. Elderly patients with comorbidities and young patients who want to avoid risk of nerve damage, with rectal prolapse up to 8-10 cms were included prospectively for perineal stapled rectal prolapse resection. Functional outcome, complications, operating time, and hospital stay were assessed in all patients. Perineal stapled prolapse resection was performed without major complications in a median operating time of 45 (range, 40-90) min and median Hospital stay was 3 days (3 to 11 days). Preoperative severe fecal incontinence and constipation improved postoperatively in 90 and 66 % of the patients, respectively, and there was no incidence of de novo onset or worsening of constipation in any of the patient. One patient developed small extra peritoneal collection which was managed by conservative treatment. No other complications occurred. At median follow-up of 36 months, all patients were well and showed no early recurrence of prolapse. Perineal stapled rectal prolapse resection is a new surgical procedure for external rectal prolapse, which is safe, easy, and quick to perform.

Which Operative Repair is Associated with a Higher Likelihood of Reoperation after Rectal Prolapse Repair?

The rate of reoperation after transabdominal as compared with transperineal repair for rectal prolapse is unknown. We evaluated all patients who underwent surgical treatment for rectal prolapse performed through transabdominal or transperineal repair from the trackable California Inpatient data files and Revisit Analyses during the time period of January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007. We specifically evaluated rates of reoperation and stoma formation during the 36-month study period. A total of 3400 patient discharges with rectal prolapse from California during the 36-month study period was identified. Of this cohort, 1772 patients had one or more prolapse repairs. Procedures were more likely to be performed through a transabdominal (1035 [58%]) as compared with a transperineal approach (737 [42%]). There was no difference in reoperation for transabdominal (11%) as compared with transperineal procedures (11%; P = 0.9). However, a significantly larger proportion of patients underwent stoma formation after transabdominal (8%) as compared with transperineal repair (5%; P < 0.02). Time to reoperation was not significantly different for patients treated with transabdominal (295 ± 254 days) as compared with transperineal repair (271 ± 246 days; P = 0.6). In conclusion, the risk of reoperation is substantial for both transabdominal and transperineal procedures for rectal prolapse.

Surgical treatments for rectal prolapse: how does a perineal approach compare in the laparoscopic era?

BACKGROUND

Patients with rectal prolapse often have significant comorbidities that lead surgeons to select a perineal resection for treatment despite a reported higher recurrence rate over abdominal approaches. There is a lack of data to support this practice in the laparoscopic era. The objective of this study was to evaluate if risk-adjusted morbidity of perineal surgery for rectal prolapse is actually lower than laparoscopic surgery.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database as performed for patients undergoing surgical treatment of rectal prolapse between 2005 and 2011. Outcomes were analyzed according to procedure-type: laparoscopic rectopexy (LR), laparoscopic resection/rectopexy (LRR), open rectopexy (OR), open resection/rectopexy (ORR), and perineal resection (PR). A multivariate logistic regression was used to compare risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality between each procedure. Main outcome measures were 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 3,254 cases sampled, a laparoscopic approach was used in 22 %, an open abdominal approach in 30 %, and PR in 48 %. Patients undergoing PR were older (76) and had a higher ASA (3) compared to laparoscopic (58, 2) and open abdominal procedures (58, 2). Risk-adjusted mortality could not be assessed due to a low overall incidence of mortality (0.01 %). Overall morbidity was 9.3 %. ORR was associated with a higher risk-adjusted morbidity compared to PR (OR: 1.89 CI (1.19-2.99), p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted morbidity found between LR and LRR compared to PR (OR 0.44 CI (0.19-1.03), p = 0.18; OR 1.55 CI (0.86-2.77), p = 0.18). Laparoscopic cases averaged 27 min longer than open cases (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic rectal prolapse surgery has comparable morbidity and mortality to perineal surgery. A randomized trial is indicated to validate these findings and to assess recurrence rates and functional outcomes.

Rectal prolapse

Optimal management of rectal prolapse requires multiple clinical considerations with respect to treatment options, particularly for surgeons who must counsel and give realistic expectations to rectal prolapse patients. Rectal prolapse outcomes are good with respect to recurrence. Although posterior rectopexy remains most popular in the United States, increasingly surgeons perform ventral rectopexy to repair rectal prolapse. Functional outcomes vary and are fair after rectal prolapse repair. Although incarceration with rectal prolapse is rare, it is potentially life threatening and requires immediate and effective measures to adequately address in the acute setting.

Laparoscopic anterior rectopexy to the promontory for full-thickness rectal prolapse in 175 consecutive patients: short- and long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

There are multiple procedures to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse. No consensus exists as to the best surgical option. All procedures have a significant recurrence rate.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to report short- and long-term technical results following laparoscopic removal of the Douglas pouch peritoneum and anterior rectopexy in patients with total rectal prolapse.

DESIGN

This study is a prospective evaluation of consecutive patients.

SETTINGS

This investigation was conducted at a single academic colorectal unit.

PATIENTS

Between May 1996 and June 2009, 175 consecutive patients (17 males) with a mean age of 58 years (range, 16-94) were operated on.

INTERVENTION

The Douglas pouch peritoneum was excised, 2 synthetic meshes were fixated to the anterior part of the lower rectum with five 4-mm staples and to the promontory with 3 spiked chromium staples, and the peritoneum was closed over the meshes to isolate them from the abdominal cavity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients were reviewed at months 1, 6, 12, and then annually. Mortality, morbidity, and recurrence were analyzed. Median follow-up was 74 months (range, 24-181). Recurrence rate was calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

: There was no mortality. Morbidity (5.1%) consisted in temporary brachial plexus palsy in 2 cases, urinary infection in 3 cases, ureteral lesion in 1 patient having had a previous bone graft on the promontory for spondylolisthesis (JJ catheter), and perforation of the small bowel because of adhesions (laparoscopic suture) in 1 case. One patient presented with a rectal erosion at month 9 (transanal removal of the mesh). Two patients presented with a recurrence of the rectal prolapse at months 6 and 24 (recurrence rate of 3% at 5 years) that was treated with anal artificial sphincter in one and redo operation in the other.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic removal of the Douglas pouch peritoneum and rectopexy to the promontory is a safe and efficient procedure to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Complications after rectal prolapse surgery: does approach matter?

BACKGROUND

Data comparing surgical outcomes following abdominal and transperineal approaches for rectal prolapse are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify differences in postoperative complications following abdominal vs transperineal approaches to rectal prolapse.

DESIGN

We studied a retrospective cohort in the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from January 2005 through December 2008.

PATIENTS

We identified all patients who underwent surgical treatment for rectal prolapse.

INTERVENTION

We compared surgical outcomes of standard abdominal approaches compared with standard transperineal approaches to rectal prolapse.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the validated morbidity outcomes and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1485 patients underwent rectal prolapse surgery (706 abdominal and 779 transperineal). Patients treated with abdominal approaches had significantly higher rates of infectious (9.8% vs 3.7%) and overall (12.9% vs 7.6%) complications in comparison with those treated with transperineal approaches. On multivariate analysis, risk factors for overall complications were ASA class 4 (OR 6.4) and abdominal surgery (OR 2.3), whereas an albumin level of ≥ 2.5 was protective (OR 0.05). Significant predictors of infectious complications were ASA class 4 (OR 7.5), BMI >25 (OR 1.8), and rectal prolapse surgery performed with an abdominal approach (OR 2.8).

LIMITATIONS

The retrospective design introduces potential selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal surgery for rectal prolapse is a predictor of both infectious and overall complications. Patients with significant comorbidities or a high BMI are at particularly high risk for complications and may be better suited for a transperineal rather than abdominal approach for the treatment of rectal prolapse.

It's the procedure not the patient: the operative approach is independently associated with an increased risk of complications after rectal prolapse repair

AIM

This study compares 30-day outcomes following rectal prolapse repair, examining potential surgical and patient factors associated with perioperative complications.

METHOD

Using the NSQIP database, patients with rectal prolapse were categorized by surgical approach to repair (perineal or abdominal) and abdominal cases were further subdivided by procedure (resection compared with rectopexy alone). Univariate and multivariate analyses compared major and minor complication rates between the groups.

RESULTS

Of 1275 patients, the perineal group (n=706, 55%) was older, with more comorbidity, than those undergoing an abdominal procedure. There were fewer minor (odd ratio (OR)=0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.60; P=0.0038) and major complications (OR=0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.80; P=0.0038) in the perineal compared with the abdominal cohort. There was a significant increase in major complications amongst patients undergoing a resection compared with rectopexy only (OR=2.15; 95% CI, 1.10-4.41; P=0.0299). There was no difference in major complications between abdominal rectopexy and a perineal approach, but the latter had a lower chance of minor complications (OR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.94; P=0.0287).

CONCLUSION

A perineal approach is safer than an abdominal approach to the treatment of rectal prolapse. Regarding an abdominal operation, rectopexy has fewer major complications than resection.

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.

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.

Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of ventral rectopexy (VR) surgery for treatment of rectal prolapse (RP) and rectal intussusception (RI) in adults. Method MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and other relevant databases were searched to identify studies. Randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized studies with more than 10 patients receiving ventral mesh rectopexy surgery were considered for the review.

RESULTS

Twelve nonrandomized case series studies with 728 patients in total are included in the review. Seven studies used the Orr-Loygue procedure (VR with posterior rectal mobilization to the pelvic floor) and five studies used VR without posterior rectal mobilization. Overall weighted mean percentage decrease in faecal incontinence (FI) rate was 45%. The weighted mean percentage decrease in constipation rate was 24%. Weighted mean recurrence rate was 3.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

There are limitations in published literature on VR. The available data indicate that VR has low recurrence and improves FI in patients suffering from these conditions. There is a greater reduction in postoperative constipation if VR is used without posterior rectal mobilization.

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.

Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults

BACKGROUND

Complete rectal prolapse is a life-style altering disability that commonly affects older people. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying pelvic floor defects in complete rectal prolapse suggests that there is no agreement about the choice of the best operation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of surgery on the treatment of rectal prolapse in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 10 January 2008), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Trials Register (searched 10 January 2008), CENTRAL (Issue 1, 2008), PubMed (1 January 1950 to 10 January 2008) and EMBASE (1 January 1998 to 10 January 2008). The British Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to January 2008) and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to January 2008) were specifically hand searched. The proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meetings held from 1999 to 2007 were perused. Reference lists of all relevant articles were searched for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult rectal prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The four primary outcome measures were: number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse, and number of patients with faecal incontinence or constipation.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve randomised controlled trials including 380 participants were identified and included in this review. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy.The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. With these caveats in mind there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches has a better outcome. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more post-operative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer post-operative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The small sample size of included trials together with their methodological weaknesses severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence with which to define optimum surgical treatment for rectal prolapse: the results of one such trial are awaited.

Rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, rectocele, solitary rectal ulcer syndrome, and enterocele

Rectal prolapse is best diagnosed by physical examination and by having the patient strain as if to defecate; a laparoscopic rectopexy is the preferred treatment approach. Intussusception is more an epiphenomena than a defecatory disorder and should be managed conservatively. Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome is a consequence of chronic straining and therapy should be aimed at restoring a normal bowel habit with behavioral approaches including biofeedback therapy. Rectocele correction may be considered if it can be definitively established that it is a cause of defecation disorder and only after conservative measures have failed. An enterocele should only be operated when pain and heaviness are predominant symptoms and it is refractory to conservative therapy.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction

OBJECTIVE

Whilst trans-abdominal fixation +/- resection offers better functional results and lower recurrence than perineal procedures, mesh rectopexy is complicated by constipation. Laparoscopic autonomic nerve-sparing, ventral rectopexy allows correction of the underlying abnormalities of the rectum, vagina, bladder and pelvic floor.

METHOD

A prospective database was used to audit our 7-year experience of this technique. The recto-vaginal septum was mobilized anteriorly to the pelvic floor avoiding nerve damage. A prolene mesh was sutured to the ventral rectum, posterior vagina and vaginal fornix and secured to the sacral promontory. Patients were assessed with questionnaires and Cleveland Clinic scores.

RESULTS

Eighty patients, six males, median age 59 years (range 31-90) underwent laparoscopic prolapse surgery between Jan 1997 and Dec 2005; 55% had full thickness prolapse and 46% rectal anal intussusception. Five had a solitary rectal ulcer. A total of 58% had undergone previous surgery; hysterectomy 33%, posterior colporrhaphy 15%, posterior rectopexy 6%, Delorme's rectal mucosectomy 5% and Birch colposuspension 3%. Half (54%) were incontinent (mean Wexner score 11, range 2-17) and 31% reported symptoms of obstructed defecation; seven had slow transit constipation and underwent resection. The median operative time was 125 min (range 50-210) with one conversion. Median time to diet was 12 h and median length of stay 3 days (1-12). No patient has developed recurrent full thickness prolapse at a median follow-up of 54 months (30-96). Incontinence improved in 39 of 43 patients (91%); median post-operative Wexner score 1 (0-9). Obstructed defecation resolved in 20 of 25 patients (80%). Pelvic pain resolved in all but one. Complications occurred in 21%; faecal impaction 4%, wound infection 2%, bleeding 2%, leak 1%, chest infection 1%, retention 1%. Three developed minor evacuatory difficulties and two, urinary stress incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is safe with relatively low morbidity. In the medium-term, it provides good results for prolapse and associated symptoms of incontinence and obstructed defecation.

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.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse

This article reviews the pathogenesis, clinical presentation and surgical management of rectal prolapse. Full-thickness prolapse of the rectum causes significant discomfort because of the sensation of the prolapse itself, the mucus that it secretes, and because it tends to stretch the anal sphincters and cause incontinence. Treatment of rectal prolapse is primarily surgical. Perineal surgical repairs are well tolerated, but are generally associated with higher recurrence rates. Abdominal repairs involve fixing the rectum to the sacrum by using either mesh or sutures, and tend to have the lowest recurrence rates. If significant preoperative constipation is present, a sigmoid resection can be performed at the time of rectopexy. For many patients, diarrhea and incontinence improve after surgery. Laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse has similar morbidity and recurrence rates to open surgery, with attendant benefits of reduced length of hospital stay, postoperative pain and wound complications.

Management of recurrent rectal prolapse: surgical approach influences outcome

INTRODUCTION

Recurrent rectal prolapse is an unresolved problem and the optimal treatment is debated. This study was designed to review patterns of care and outcomes in a large cohort of patients after surgery for recurrent prolapse.

METHODS

From 685 patients who underwent operative repair for full-thickness external rectal prolapse, we identified 78 patients (70 females; mean age, 66.9 years) who underwent surgery for recurrence. We reviewed the subsequent management and outcomes for these 78 patients.

RESULTS

Mean interval to their first recurrence was 33 (range, 1-168) months. There were significantly more re-recurrences after reoperation using a perineal procedure (19/51) compared with an abdominal procedure (4/27) for their recurrent rectal prolapse (P = 0.03) at a mean follow-up of nine (range, 1-82) months. Patients undergoing abdominal repair of recurrence were significantly younger than those who underwent perineal repair (mean age, 58.5 vs. 71.5 years; P < 0.01); however, there was nosignificant difference between the two groups with regard to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (P = 0.89). Eighteen patients had surgery for a second recurrence, with perineal repairs associated with higher failure rates (50 vs. 8 percent; P = 0.07). Finally, when combining all repairs, the abdominal approach continued to have significantly lower recurrence rates (39 vs. 13 percent; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The re-recurrence rate after surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse is high, even at a relatively short follow-up interval. Our data suggest that abdominal repair of recurrent rectal prolapse should be undertaken if the patient's risk profile permits this approach.

Digital assessment of lower rectum fixity in rectal prolapse (DALR): a simple clinical anatomical test to determine the most suitable approach (abdominal versus perineal) for repair

Selection of an appropriate approach to treat full thickness rectal prolapse remains problematic and controversial. We propose that rectal prolapse may be classified as 'low type' (true rectal prolapse) or 'high type' (intussusception of the sigmoid with a fixed lower rectum). This assessment can be made via a simple clinical test of digital rectal assessment of lower rectal fixity ('the hook test') based on anatomic changes in rectal prolapse to guide the selection process. In cases with the low-type prolapse, a perineal approach is appropriate (either Delorme's procedure, or rectosigmoidectomy with or without pelvic floor repair). For the high type, an abdominal rectopexy with or without high anterior resection is needed. Retrospective analysis of our cases treated over the last 6 years showed a recurrence rate of 6% in perineal procedures and 0% in abdominal rectopexy combined with resection to date. We believe that employing our simple test and classification can contribute to better patient selection for either approach, minimize anaesthetic and surgical risks and also result in lower recurrence rates.

Der Rektumprolaps des Erwachsenen

The etiology of rectal prolapse is unclear. Diagnosis is easy by local inspection. The ideal surgery would repair the prolapse, correct any functional problems such as incontinence or constipation, be minimally invasive and cost-effective, and result in minimal morbidity and recurrence. The best surgical repair remains controversial-whether by the transanal/perineal or abdominal approach-with or without resection and rectopexy. There are no prospective-randomized studies that convincingly answer the numerous questions. The best possible option today seems to be the abdominal/laparoscopic method with a resection rectopexy according to Frykman and Goldberg.

Rectal prolapse: a possibly underrecognized complication of anorexia nervosa amenable to surgical correction

OBJECTIVE

Rectal prolapse is a complication of anorexia nervosa (AN) that may be more common than previously recorded experience would suggest.

METHOD

In this report we document, for the first time, the association of (AN) and rectal prolapse in a series of three patients seen in the past three years. An extensive review of the literature using Medline over the period from 1966 to Jan 2000 failed to reveal any previous example of this association.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The finding could have significant health care implications if confirmed. It would suggest that patients with either the psychiatric or surgical problem may not be receiving the appropriate complementary referrals: psychiatrist to surgeon and vice versa. The importance of recognition of this association in anorectic patients is the availability of effective surgical therapy.

Rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, rectocele, and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome

Rectal prolapse can be diagnosed easily by having the patient strain as if to defecate. A laparoscopic rectopexy should be recommended. Intussusception is more an epiphenomenon than a cause of defecatory disorder and should be managed conservatively. Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome is a consequence of chronic straining, and therapy should include restoring a normal defecation habit. Rectocele should be left alone; an operation may be considered if it is larger than 3 cm and is causing profound symptoms despite maximizing medical therapy for the associated defecation disorder.

Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults

BACKGROUND

Complete rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition, which affects both the very young and the elderly and can cause faecal incontinence. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying anal sphincter or pelvic floor defects in complete rectal prolapse poses the question about the choice of the best operation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of surgery on the treatment of rectal prolapse in adults. The following specific issues have been addressed: I. Whether surgical intervention is better than no treatment; II. Whether an abdominal approach to surgery is better then a perineal approach; III. Whether one method for performing rectopexy is better than another; IV. Whether laparoscopic access is better than open access for surgery; V. Whether resection should be included in the procedure.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register, the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 1999), Medline (up to March 1999), Embase (1998 up to January 1999), Sigle (1980 up to December 1996), Biosis (1998 up to March 1999), SCI (1998 up to March 1999), ISTP (1982 up to March 1999) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We hand searched the British Journal of Surgery 1995-8, and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 1995-8. We also searched the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology, meeting 1999. Date of the most recent searches: March 1999.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of rectal prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials. The three primary outcome measures were number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, or residual mucosal prolapse or faecal incontinence.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included with a total of 264 participants. No trial included a group receiving no treatment, or anal encirclement, or Delormes procedure, or laparoscopic suture rectopexy, or laparoscopic resection rectopexy. One trial (20 participants) compared both perineal and abdominal resection rectopexy with pelvic floor repair; four trials (175 participants) compared different types of open rectopexy techniques; one trial (21 participants) compared laparoscopic with open mesh rectopexy; and two trials included comparisons between open resection rectopexy and rectopexy alone. In all comparisons data were few. There were no detectable differences in recurrent prolapse between abdominal and perineal approaches, although there was a suggestion that residual faecal incontinence was less common after abdominal surgery. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more post-operative constipation, although these findings were found in small numbers. There were too few data with which to compare laparoscopic with open surgery. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation, but again numbers were small.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The small number of relevant trials identified, and their small sample sizes together with other methodological weaknesses severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence with which to define optimum surgical treatment.