Robot-Assisted Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A 5-Year Experience at a Tertiary Referral Center

Quality of Life, Functional Outcomes, and Recurrence After Resection Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse Repair

BACKGROUND

Resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy are widely accepted surgical options for the treatment of rectal prolapse; however, reports on long-term recurrence rates and functional outcomes are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We compared quality of life, long-term functional outcomes, and prolapse recurrence after resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy.

DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively collected rectal prolapse surgery database.

SETTINGS

Patients who underwent resection rectopexy or ventral mesh rectopexy at our center between 2009 and 2016 were included.

PATIENTS

Two hundred twenty patients were included, of whom 208 (94%) were women; 85 (39%) underwent resection rectopexy and 135 (61%) ventral mesh rectopexy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prolapse recurrence.

RESULTS

The resection rectopexy group was younger (median 52 vs 60 years old, p = 0.02) and had more open procedures (20% vs 9%, p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 110 (interquartile range 94-146) months for resection rectopexy and 113 (87-137) months for ventral mesh rectopexy, recurrences occurred in 21 (26%) in the resection rectopexy and 50 (39%) in the ventral mesh rectopexy group ( p = 0.041). The median time to recurrence was 44 (18-80) months in the resection rectopexy group and 28.5 (11-52.5) months in the ventral mesh rectopexy group ( p = 0.14). There were no differences in the recurrence rate for primary prolapses in resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy. The recurrence rate for redo prolapses was higher in the ventral mesh rectopexy group at 63% at 10 years versus 25% in the resection rectopexy group ( p = 0.006). Functional outcomes were similar between the 2 groups.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective review, recall bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes after resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy were comparable. Ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with a higher prolapse recurrence rate after recurrent rectal prolapse repair. See Video Abstract .

CALIDAD DE VIDA, RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y RECURRENCIA DESPUS DE LA RECTOPEXIA POR RESECCIN VERSUS LA RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL CON MALLA PARA LA REPARACIN DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL

ANTECEDENTES:La rectopexia de resección y la rectopexia ventral con malla son opciones quirúrgicas ampliamente aceptadas para el tratamiento del prolapso rectal; sin embargo, faltan informes sobre las tasas de recurrencia a largo plazo y los resultados funcionales.OBJETIVO:Comparamos la calidad de vida, los resultados funcionales a largo plazo y la recurrencia del prolapso después de la rectopexia de resección versus la rectopexia ventral con malla.DISEÑO:Revisamos retrospectivamente nuestra base de datos de cirugía de prolapso rectal recopilada prospectivamente.ENTORNO CLÍNICO:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a rectopexia resección o rectopexia ventral con malla en nuestro centro entre 2009 y 2016.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron 220 pacientes, de los cuales 208 (94%) eran mujeres; 85 (39%) fueron sometidos a rectopexia de resección, 135 (61%) rectopexia ventral con malla.INTERVENCIONES:Ninguna.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Recurrencia del prolapso.RESULTADOS:El grupo de rectopexia de resección era más joven (mediana 52 vs 60 años, p = 0,02) y tenía más procedimientos abiertos (20% vs 9%, p < 0,001). Después de una mediana de seguimiento de 110 (RIC 94 - 146) meses para la rectopexia de resección y 113 (87 - 137) para la rectopexia ventral con malla, se produjeron recurrencias en 21 (26%) del grupo de rectopexia de resección y en 50 (39%) del grupo de rectopexia ventral con malla (p = 0,041). La mediana del tiempo hasta la recurrencia fue de 44 (18 - 80) meses en el grupo de rectopexia de resección y 28,5 (11 - 52,5) en el grupo de rectopexia ventral con malla (p = 0,14). No hubo diferencias en la tasa de recurrencia de prolapsos primarios en la rectopexia de resección versus la rectopexia con malla ventral. La tasa de recurrencia de prolapsos repetidos fue mayor en el grupo de rectopexia con malla ventral, 63% a los 10 años, versus 25% en el grupo de rectopexia con resección (p = 0,006). Los resultados funcionales fueron similares entre los dos grupos.LIMITACIONES:Revisión retrospectiva, sesgo.CONCLUSIÓN:La calidad de vida a largo plazo y los resultados funcionales después de la rectopexia de resección y la rectopexia ventral con malla fueron comparables. La rectopexia ventral con malla se asoció con una mayor tasa de recurrencia del prolapso después de la reparación del prolapso rectal recurrente. (Traducción-Ingrid Melo ).

Healthcare Resource Utilization Following Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy: Impact of Concomitant Rectopexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Combined surgical procedures with sacrocolpopexy (SCP) and rectopexy (RP) are more commonly being performed for treatment of multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) within 6 weeks following combined surgery (SCP-RP) versus SCP alone (SCP-only). We hypothesized that concomitant RP does not impact HRU.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent minimally invasive SCP from 2017 to 2022 was conducted at a tertiary referral center. Patients were grouped based on the performance of concomitant RP. HRU was defined as a composite of unscheduled office visits, emergency department visits, and readmissions before the 6-week postoperative visit. HRU was compared in the SCP-RP and SCP-only groups. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with HRU.

RESULTS

There were 144 patients in the SCP-RP group and 405 patients in the SCP-only group. Patient characteristics were similar between the two groups, with the following exceptions: the SCP-RP group was older, more likely to have comorbid conditions, and live >60 miles from the hospital. Of the 549 patients, 183 (33.3%) had ≥1 HRU encounter within 6 weeks after surgery. However, there was no difference between the SCP-RP and SCP-only groups in composite HRU (34.0% vs 33.1%, p = 0.84). The most common reasons for HRU were pain, urinary tract infection symptoms, and wound issues. Concomitant mid-urethral sling was associated with a two-fold increased risk of HRU after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 3 patients undergoing minimally invasive SCP had at least one unanticipated encounter within 6 weeks after surgery. Concomitant RP was not associated with increased postoperative HRU.

Could robotic-assisted surgery reduce mesh-related complications after ventral mesh rectopexy? Experience of a tertiary centre and systematic review of the literature

AIM

The development of robotic assistance has made dissection and suturing in the deep pelvis much easier. The augmented quality of the images and the articulation of the robotic arms have also enabled a more precise dissection. The aim of this study is to present the data on robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy procedures in a university hospital and examine the literature in terms of mesh erosion.

METHOD

The electronic databases Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane were searched. Studies from January 2004 until January 2023 in the English language were included. Studies which included fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were included. Mesh erosion rates following laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were measured.

RESULTS

Overall, the systematic review presents 5911 patients from 43 studies who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with 746 patients treated with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy from six studies and our centre. Mesh erosion was rare in both groups; however, the prevalence was greater in the laparoscopy group (0.90% vs. 0.27%).

CONCLUSION

The mesh erosion rates are very low with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy. For precise results, more studies and experience in robotic surgery are required.

Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders better than laparoscopic approach at the beginning of the experience? A retrospective single-center study

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative results of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders at the beginning of the surgical experience.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2022, the first 30 laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexies and the first 30 robotic ventral mesh rectopexies at the beginning of the experience of 2 surgeons were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative (demographic characteristics, surgical indication, conversion rate, operative time), and postoperative (complications, length of stay, unplanned reintervention) data were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Conversion rate was lower (0 vs 17%, p = 0.05), but the operative time was significantly longer (182 [146-290] vs 150 [75-240] minutes, p < 0.0001) during robotic procedure when compared with laparoscopic approach. In terms of learning curve, the number of procedures to obtain the same operative time between the 2 approaches was 15. Postoperative results were similar between groups, in terms of pain (visual analogic scale = 2 [0-8] vs 4 [0-9], p = 0.07), morbidity (17 vs 3%, p = 0.2), and unplanned reintervention (1 vs 0%, p = 0.99). Mean length of stay was significantly reduced after robotic approach when compared with laparoscopic approach (3 [2-10] vs 5 [2-11] days, p < 0.01). Functional results were better after robotic than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, with higher satisfaction rate (93 vs 75%, p = 0.05), and reduced recurrence rate (0 vs 14%, p = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

Despite longer operative time at the beginning of the learning curve, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with similar or better perioperative results than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for rectal prolapse. Both synthetic and biologic mesh are used. No consensus exists on the preferred type of mesh material. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish an overview of the current literature on mesh-related complications and recurrence after VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh to aid evidence-based decision making in preferred mesh material.

METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane was performed (from inception until September 2020). Studies evaluating patients who underwent VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh were eligible. The MINORS score was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were eligible after qualitative assessment. Eleven studies reported on mesh-related complications including 4001 patients treated with synthetic mesh and 762 treated with biologic mesh. The incidence of mesh-related complications ranged between 0 and 2.4% after synthetic versus 0-0.7% after biologic VMR. Synthetic mesh studies showed a pooled incidence of mesh-related complications of 1.0% (95% CI 0.5-1.7). Data of biologic mesh studies could not be pooled. Twenty-nine studies reported on the risk of recurrence in 2371 synthetic mesh patients and 602 biologic mesh patients. The risk of recurrence varied between 1.1 and 18.8% for synthetic VMR versus 0-15.4% for biologic VMR. Cumulative incidence of recurrence was found to be 6.1% (95% CI 4.3-8.1) and 5.8% (95% CI 2.9-9.6), respectively. The clinical and statistical heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSIONS

No definitive conclusions on preferred mesh type can be made due to the quality of the included studies with high heterogeneity amongst them.

Ninety-day morbidity of robot-assisted redo surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse, mesh erosion and pelvic pain: lessons learned from 9 years' experience in a tertiary referral centre

AIM

With increasing follow-up of patients treated with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) more redo surgery can be expected for recurrent rectal prolapse, mesh erosion and pelvic pain. The aim of this study is to evaluate the 90-day morbidity of robot-assisted redo interventions.

METHOD

All robot-assisted redo interventions after primary transabdominal repair of rectal prolapse between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively analysed and compared with the results for patients after primary robot-assisted VMR during the same period. The redo interventions were divided into groups based on the indication for surgery (recurrent prolapse, mesh erosion, pelvic pain). Intraoperative complications and 90-day postoperative morbidity were evaluated.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifty nine patients were treated with primary VMR, with 73 for recurrent rectal prolapse, 12 for mesh erosion and 14 for pelvic pain. Complications of recurrent prolapse surgeries were comparable to those of primary VMR (p > 0.05). More intraoperative complications, minor and major complications were seen in redo surgery for erosion compared with primary VMR (23% vs. 3%, p = 0.01; 31% vs. 11%, p = 0.055; and 38% vs. 1%, p < 0.01 respectively). The frequency of intraoperative complications after redo surgery for pelvic pain was 7% with minor and major morbidity rates of 14% and 7% (p > 0.05). Half of the patients with pelvic pain experienced relief of their symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Redo surgery for management of recurrent rectal prolapse is safe. Redo surgery for mesh erosion is associated with high morbidity rates. Redo surgery for pelvic pain can have major complications and is only effective in half of the cases.

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy between robot‐assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF) and traditional open TLIF surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Methods

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 48 cases with lumbar spondylolisthesis who received surgical treatment from June 2016 to December 2017 in the spinal surgery department of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital were analyzed in this study, including 23 patients who received robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF and 25 patients who received traditional open TLIF surgery. The two groups were compared in terms of pedicle screw accuracy evaluated by Gertzbein‐Robbins classification on postoperative computed tomography (CT), operation time, blood loss, postoperative drainage, hospitalization, time to independent ambulation, low back pain evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS), lumbar function evaluated by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), paraspinal muscles atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and complications.

Results

Postoperative CT showed that the rate of Grade A screws in the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group was significantly more than that in the open surgery group (χ² = 4.698, P = 0.025). Compared with the open surgery group, the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative drainage, shorter hospitalization, shorter time to independent ambulation, and lower VAS at 3 days post‐operation (P < 0.05). However, the duration of surgery was longer. The VAS of the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group decreased from 6.9 ± 1.8 at pre‐operation to 2.1 ± 0.8 at post‐operation, 1.8 ± 0.7 at 6‐month follow‐up and 1.6 ± 0.5 at 2‐year follow‐up. The VAS of the open surgery group decreased from 6.5 ± 1.7 at pre‐operation to 3.7 ± 2.1 at post‐operation, 2.1 ± 0.6 at 6‐month follow‐up and 1.9 ± 0.5 at 2‐year follow‐up. The ODI of the robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group decreased from 57.8% ± 8.9% at pre‐operation to 18.6% ± 4.7% at post‐operation, 15.7% ± 3.9% at 6‐month follow‐up and 14.6% ± 3.7% at 2‐year follow‐up. The ODI of the open surgery group decreased from 56.9% ± 8.8% at pre‐operation to 20.8% ± 5.1% at post‐operation, 17.3% ± 4.2% at 6‐month follow‐up and 16.5% ± 3.8% at 2‐year follow‐up. Paraspinal muscle cross‐sectional area in 2‐year follow‐up in patients of the open surgery group decreased significantly compared to patients of robotic‐assisted MIS‐TLIF group (P = 0.016).

Conclusion

In the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, robot‐assisted MIS‐TLIF may lead to more precise pedicle screw placement, less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative drainage, less postoperative pain, quicker recovery, and less paraspinal muscle atrophy than traditional open surgery.

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.

Evaluation of the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

BACKGROUND

The current standard treatment for external rectal prolapse and symptomatic high-grade internal rectal prolapse is surgical correction with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy using either laparoscopy or robotic assistance. This study examines the number of procedures needed to complete the learning curve for robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and reach adequate performance.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all primary RVMR from 2011 to 2019 performed in a tertiary pelvic floor clinic by two colorectal surgeons (A and B) was performed. Both surgeons had previous experience with laparoscopic rectopexy, but no robotic experience. Skin-to-skin operating times (OT) were assessed using LC-CUSUM analyses. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed using CUSUM analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 182 (surgeon A) and 91 (surgeon B) RVMRs were performed in total. There were no relevant differences in patient characteristics between the two surgeons. Median OT was 75 min (range 46-155; surgeon A) and 90 min (range 63-139; surgeon B). The learning curve regarding OT was completed after 36 procedures for surgeon A and 55 procedures for surgeon B. Both before and after completion of the learning curve, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates remained below a predefined acceptable level of performance.

CONCLUSIONS

36 to 55 procedures are required to complete the learning curve for RVMR. The implementation of robotic surgery does not inflict any additional risks on patients at the beginning of a surgeon's learning curve.

Advantages of robotic surgery in the treatment of complex pelvic organs prolapse

Robot-assisted surgery is safe and effective to treat the complex pelvic organs prolapse (C-POP). The present study analyzes all the robotic procedures and their advantages in the treatment of C-POP performed in a Proctologic and Pelvic Floor Clinical Centre. All the patients affected by C-POP who had robot-assisted surgery were retrospective analyzed. The anatomical and functional outcomes were respectively evaluated through POP-Q grading system and Wexner score about constipation and incontinence. The satisfaction rate was investigated using a five-point scale. From September 2014 to December 2018, 229 women underwent robotic surgery. The follow-up was 12 months. There were no robot-related complications. One hematoma (4.5%) of the recto-vaginal space occurred after Robotic Ventral Rectopexy with Folded Mesh (R-VRP-FM). In the robotic assisted lateral suspension (R-ALS) group there was one case of anterior vaginal wall mesh exposure (0.9%). After the robotic ventral rectopexy (R-VRP) the recurrence rate of external rectal prolapse, internal rectal prolapse, rectocele and enterocele was respectively 6.6, 9.5, 7.4 and 9.5%. After R-VRP-FM only one cystocele (14%) and one partial rectal prolapse (25%) recurred. Vaginal bulge symptoms resolution rate was 95.4%. The mean Wexner constipation score significantly decreased after R-VRP and R-VRP-FM. Vaginal bulge symptoms improved in 98.3% of cases with any apical prolapse recurrence after robotic abdominal colposacropexy. Success rate after R-ALS was 99.1% and 96.4% for apical and anterior prolapse respectively. Robotic assistance makes some surgical steps easier and more precise and this may result in less morbidity and better results.

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.

Restored pelvic anatomy is preserved after laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy: MRI-based 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Our aim was to compare the long-term anatomical outcomes between robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for external or internal rectal prolapse.

METHOD

This study is a follow-up of a single-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT). Thirty patients were randomly allocated to RVMR (n = 16) or LVMR (n = 14). The primary end-point was maintenance of the restored pelvic anatomy 5 years after the operation, as assessed by magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography. Secondary outcome measures included the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measures and functional results assessed using symptom questionnaires.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (14 RVMR and 12 LVMR) completed the 5-year follow-up and were included in the study. The MRI results, POP-Q measurements and symptom-specific quality of life measures did not differ between the RVMR and LVMR groups. The MRI measurements of the total study population remained unchanged between 3 months and 5 years. In the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), the RVMR group had lower symptom scores (mean 96.0, SD 70.7) than the LVMR group (mean 160.6, SD 58.9; P = 0.004). In the subscales of pelvic organ prolapse (POPDI-6) (mean 23.2, SD 24.3 vs mean 52.4, SD 22.4; P = 0.001) and the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) (mean 38.4, SD 23.3 vs mean 58.6, SD 25.4; P = 0.009), the patients in the RVMR group had significantly better outcomes.

CONCLUSION

After VMR, the corrected anatomy was preserved. There were no clinically significant differences in anatomical results between the RVMR and LVMR procedures 5 years after surgery based on MR defaecography. However, functional outcomes were better after RMVR.

A Collaborative Approach to Multicompartment Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse is common yet frequently underreported and unrecognized. Although not life-threatening, the impact on quality of life and daily functioning can be significant. Multidisciplinary evaluation and treatment with specialists in colorectal and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) help to identify patients who will benefit from surgical treatment of vaginal and rectal prolapse. Both abdominal and perineal combined procedures can be offered to patients with a single operation and concurrent recovery period without increasing complications.

Ventral Rectopexy

Rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition that often results in impaired quality of life. Posterior compartment defects including rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception are often associated with middle and anterior compartment prolapse and require a multicompartment approach to treatment. In recent years, ventral rectopexy, with or without sacrocolpopexy for combined middle compartment prolapse, has emerged as a safe and effective method of treatment for rectal prolapse. In this article, we aim to review the etiology of rectal prolapse and intussusception, describe the indications and workup for surgery, discuss technical aspects of ventral rectopexy alone and in combination with sacrocolpopexy, review potential surgical complications, and describe the reported outcomes of the surgery.

Long-term Anatomical and Functional Results of Robot-Assisted Pelvic Floor Surgery for the Management of Multicompartment Prolapse: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Long-term data on robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for the treatment of multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse are scarce. With the rising prevalence of prolapse and increasing surgical repair, it is essential to evaluate long-term results.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate long-term functional and anatomic outcomes after sacrocolporectopexy.

DESIGN

This is a prospective, observational cohort study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a teaching hospital with tertiary referral function for patients with gynecological/rectal prolapse.

PATIENTS

All patients undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy from 2011 to 2012 were included.

INTERVENTION

Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the anatomic cure rate after 1 and 4 years, defined as simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage 1 vaginal apical prolapse and no external rectal prolapse or internal rectal prolapse present. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for determination of recurrence-free intervals. Secondary outcomes were functional pelvic floor symptoms (symptoms of bulge, obstructed defecation, fecal incontinence, urogenital distress inventory) and quality of life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire).

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were included. After 12 and 48 months, the recurrence-free intervals based on Kaplan-Meier estimates were 100% and 90%. In total, there were 10 recurrences: 2 apical and 8 internal rectal prolapses. Symptoms of bulge (94%-12%; p < 0.0005), fecal incontinence (62%-32%; p < 0.0005), obstructed defecation (59%-24%; p = 0.008), and median Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores (124-5; p = 0.022) improved significantly at final follow-up. Median urogenital distress inventory scores showed improvement after 1 year (30-13; p = 0.021).

LIMITATIONS

This was an observational, single-center study with selective postoperative imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Ninety percent of patients were recurrence free 48 months after robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy. Symptoms of vaginal bulge, quality of life, constipation, and fecal incontinence improved significantly. However, a subgroup of patients showed persistent bowel complaints that underlie the complexity of multicompartment prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B265. RESULTADOS ANATÓMICOS Y FUNCIONALES A LARGO PLAZO DE LA CIRUGÍA DE PISO PÉLVICO ASISTIDA POR ROBOT EN EL TRATAMIENTO DEL PROLAPSO MULTICOMPARTIMENTAL: UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO: Los datos a largo plazo sobre la sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot para el tratamiento del prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos son escasos. Con el aumento de la prevalencia del prolapso y el aumento de la reparación quirúrgica, es esencial evaluar los resultados a largo plazo.Evaluar los resultados funcionales y anatómicos a largo plazo después de la sacrocolporectopexia.Estudio prospectivo observacional de cohorte.Hospital de enseñanza con función de referencia terciaria para pacientes con prolapso ginecológico/rectal.Todos los pacientes sometidos a sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot en 2011-2012.Sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot.El resultado primario fue la tasa de curación anatómica a uno y cuatro años, definida como etapa 1 de prolapso apical vaginal en la cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos simplificado, y sin prolapso rectal externo o prolapso rectal interno presentes. Se utilizaron curvas de Kaplan Meier para determinar los intervalos libres de recurrencia. Los resultados secundarios fueron síntomas funcionales del piso pélvico (síntomas de abultamiento, obstrucción defecatoria, incontinencia fecal, inventario de molestias urogenitales) y calidad de vida (cuestionario de impacto del piso pélvico).Se incluyeron 53 pacientes. Después de 12 y 48 meses, el intervalo libre de recurrencia basado en las estimaciones con método Kaplan Meier fue del 100% y 90%, respectivamente. En total hubo diez recurrencias: dos apicales y ocho prolapsos rectales internos. Los síntomas de abultamiento (94% a 12%; p <0.0005), incontinencia fecal (62% a 32%; p <0.0005), obstrucción defecatoria (59% a 24%; p = 0.008) y puntajes promedio del cuestionario de impacto del piso pélvico (124 a 5; p = 0.022) mejoraron significativamente en el seguimiento final. Las puntuaciones medias del inventario de molestias urogenitales mostraron una mejoría después de un año (30 a 13; p = 0.021).Estudio observacional de centro único con imagenología postoperatoria selectiva.Noventa por ciento de los pacientes estaban libres de recurrencia 48 meses después de la sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot. Los síntomas de abultamiento vaginal, la calidad de vida, el estreñimiento y la incontinencia fecal mejoraron significativamente. Sin embargo, un subgrupo de pacientes mostró molestias intestinales persistentes que subrayan a la complejidad del prolapso multicompartimental. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B265.

A prospective pilot study on MRI visibility of iron oxide-impregnated polyvinylidene fluoride mesh after ventral rectopexy

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides excellent information about pelvic anatomy after ventral rectopexy, but the position of the conventional mesh is not seen constantly. Iron oxide-impregnated polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) meshes are proven to have MRI visibility in hernia or vaginal reconstructive surgery. This prospective pilot study was designed to assess the visualization, position, and shape of the magnetic resonance (MR)–visible synthetic pelvic mesh used in minimally invasive ventral rectopexy.

Methods

Eight patients with pelvic organ prolapse were recruited for laparoscopic (LVMR) or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) with a synthetic MR–visible PVDF mesh. A follow-up visit was scheduled at 3 months after surgery. MR imaging was performed to evaluate the position and dimensions of the mesh and anatomical result. The visibility of the mesh in each sequence was assessed subjectively.

Results

The visibility of the mesh was best on T1-weighted flash images. The mesh was also well visualized on T2-weighted sagittal images. T2-weighted images, in general, provided best visualization of the surrounding anatomical structures and enabled assessment of the mesh fixation.

Conclusions

T2 sagittal and T1-weighted flash images provide the best information about the position and integrity of the iron oxide-impregnated PVDF mesh after LVMR or RVMR with a short examination time.

Long-term outcomes of robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays in Europe, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is the gold standard treatment of external rectal prolapse (ERP). The benefits of robot ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) are not clearly defined. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the long-term results of RVMR. The secondary objective was to determine predictive factors of recurrence.

DESIGN

Monocentric, retrospective study. Data, both pre-operative and peri-operative, were collected, and follow-up data were assessed prospectively by a telephone questionnaire. The study was performed in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Between August 2007 and August 2017, we evaluate all consecutive patients who underwent RVMR for ERP by three different surgeons. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate perceived by patients. Secondary outcome were functional results based on Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom score for constipation and Wexner score for incontinence, compared before and after surgery.

RESULTS

During the study period 96 patients (86 women) underwent RVMR. The mean age was 62.3 years (range 16-90). Twelve patients had a history of ERP repair. Sixty-nine patients were analyzed for long-term outcomes with a mean follow-up of 37 months (range 2.3-92 months). Recurrence rate was 12.5%. After surgery, constipation was significantly reduced: 44 patients were constipated before surgery versus 23 after surgery. Six patients described de novo constipation (6.25%). Fecal incontinence was significantly reduced: 59 patients were incontinent before surgery versus 14 after surgery. No predictive factor for recurrence was identified after multivariate analysis. No mesh related complications were related.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, RVMR presents good long-term functional result and a recurrence rate similar to LVMR as published in the literature. The rate of mesh related complications seems lower.

The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the growth in laparoscopic surgery, comparable oncological outcomes, and reduced complication rates, the majority of colorectal surgery is still performed via an open approach. Reasons for this may include technical difficulties associated with operating in narrow spaces such as in the pelvis and inadequate experience. Robotic surgery provides potential solutions to some of these challenges. This review will summarize the state of the literature regarding robotic colorectal surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most consistent benefit of robotic surgery is decreasing operative conversions, specifically in rectal cancer. In partial colectomies, there is evidence to support quicker return to bowel function. Oncologic outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach are equivalent. Robotic surgery provides solutions to the challenges posed by laparoscopy, including wristed instruments, ease of intracorporeal suturing, and ergonomic advantages. Randomized trials to evaluate peri-operative outcomes will be important. If robotics is able to facilitate conversion of open colectomies to their minimally invasive equivalent, robotics may end up proving to be advantageous in the peri-operative and post-operative period. Continued studies are warranted.

Consensus Statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse, rectal procidentia, "complete" prolapse or "third-degree" prolapse is the full-thickness prolapse of the rectal wall through the anal canal and has a significant impact on quality of life. The incidence of rectal prolapse has been estimated to be approximately 2.5 per 100,000 inhabitants with a clear predominance among elderly women. The aim of this consensus statement was to provide evidence-based data to allow an individualized and appropriate management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse. The strategy used to search for evidence was based on application of electronic sources such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Review Library, CINAHL and EMBASE. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Gastroenterology's Chronic Constipation Task Force. Five evidence levels were defined. The recommendations were graded A, B, and C.

Role of robotic surgery on pelvic floor reconstruction

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) abdominal surgery has increasingly been used to treat pelvic organ prolapse. Besides the several advantages associated with minimal invasiveness, this approach bridged the gap between the benefits of vaginal surgery and the surgical success rates of open abdominal procedures. The most commonly performed procedure for suspension of the vaginal apex for postoperative vaginal prolapse by robotic-assisted laparoscopy is the sacrocolpopexy. Conventional laparoscopic application of this procedure was first reported in 1994 by Nezhat et al. and had not gained widespread adoption due to lengthy learning curve associated with laparoscopic suturing. Since FDA approval of the da Vinci® robot for gynecologic surgery in 2005, minimally invasive abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse has become increasingly popular, as robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is an option for those surgeons without experience or training in the conventional route. Robotic surgery has made its way into the armamentarium of POP treatment and has allowed pelvic surgeons to adapt the "gold standard" technique of abdominal sacrocolpopexy to a minimally invasive approach with improved intraoperative morbidity and decreased convalescence. In fact, repair of pelvic organ prolapse can be performed robotically, and sometimes surgeons can feel suturing and dissection during the procedures less challenging with the assistance of the robot. However, even if robotic surgery may confer many benefits over conventional laparoscopy, these advantages should continue to be weighed against the cost of the technology. To date, as long-term outcomes, evidence about robotic sacrocolpopexy for a repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not conclusive, and much more investigations are needed to evaluate subjective and objective outcomes, perioperative and postoperative adverse events, and costs associated with these procedures. It is plausible to think that the main advantage is that robotics may lead to a widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques in the field of pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The following review will address the development and current state of robotic assistance in treating pelvic floor reconstruction discussing available data about the techniques of robotic prolapse repair as well as morbidity, costs and clinical outcomes.

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.