Does Ventral Rectopexy Improve Pelvic Floor Function in the Long Term?

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

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Combined Robotic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy for Multicompartmental Pelvic Organ Prolapse

BACKGROUND

Multispecialty management should be the preferred approach for the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction because there is often multicompartmental prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety of combined robotic ventral mesh rectopexy and either uterine or vaginal fixation for the treatment of multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse at our institution.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

SETTINGS

Tertiary referral academic center.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent a robotic approach and combined procedure and whose cases were discussed at a biweekly pelvic floor multidisciplinary team meeting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative time, intraoperative blood loss and complications, postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification score, length of stay, 30-day morbidity, and readmission.

RESULTS

From 2018 to 2021, there were 321 operations for patients with multicompartmental prolapse. The mean age was 63.4 years. The predominant pelvic floor dysfunction was rectal prolapse in 170 cases (60%). Pelvic organ prolapse quantification scores were II in 146 patients (53%), III in 121 patients (44%), and IV in 9 patients (3%); 315 of 323 cases included robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (98%). Sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy was performed in 281 patients (89%). Other procedures included 175 hysterectomies (54%), 104 oophorectomies (32%), 151 sling procedures (47%), 149 posterior repairs (46%), and 138 cystocele repairs (43%). The operative time for ventral mesh rectopexy was 211 minutes and for combined pelvic floor reconstruction was 266 minutes. Average length of stay was 1.6 days. Eight patients were readmitted within 30 days: 1 with a severe headache and 7 with postoperative complications (2.5%), such as pelvic collection and perirectal collection, both requiring radiologic drainage. Four complications required reoperation: epidural abscess, small-bowel obstruction, missed enterotomy requiring resection, and urinary retention requiring sling revision. There were no mortalities.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective single-center study.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined robotic approach for multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse is a safe and viable procedure with a relatively low rate of morbidity and no mortality. This is the highest volume series of combined robotic pelvic floor reconstruction in the literature and demonstrates a low complication rate and short length of stay. See Video Abstract .

RECTOPEXIA Y SACROCOLPOPEXIA ROBTICA VENTRAL COMBINADAS CON MALLA PARA EL PROLAPSO DE RGANOS PLVICOS MULTICOMPARTIMENTALES

ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento multiespecializado debe ser el enfoque preferido para el tratamiento de la disfunción del suelo pélvico, ya que a menudo hay prolapso multicompartimental.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la seguridad de la rectopexia robótica combinada con malla ventral y fijación uterina o vaginal para el tratamiento del prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos en nuestra institución.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Centro académico de referencia terciarioPACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a un enfoque robótico y un procedimiento combinado y se discutieron en una reunión quincenal del equipo multidisciplinario sobre el piso pélvico.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tiempo operatorio, pérdida de sangre intraoperatoria y complicaciones. Puntuación de cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos posoperatorio, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, morbilidad a 30 días y reingreso.RESULTADOS:De 2018 a 2021, se realizaron 321 operaciones de pacientes con prolapso multicompartimental. La edad media fue 63.4 años. La disfunción del suelo pélvico predominante fue el prolapso rectal en 170 casos (60%). Las puntuaciones de cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos fueron II en 146 pacientes (53%), III en 121 (44%) y IV en 9 (3%); 315 de los 323 casos incluyeron rectopexia robótica de malla ventral (98%). Se realizó sacrocolpopexia o sacrohisteropexia en 281 pacientes (89%). Otros procedimientos incluyeron 175 histerectomías (54%), 104 ooforectomías (32%), 151 procedimientos de cabestrillo (47%), 149 reparaciones posteriores (46%) y 138 reparaciones de cistocele (43%). El tiempo operatorio para la rectopexia con malla ventral fue de 211 minutos y la reconstrucción combinada del piso pélvico de 266 minutos. La estancia media fue de 1.6 días. Ocho pacientes reingresaron dentro de los 30 días, 1 con dolor de cabeza intenso y 7 pacientes con complicaciones posoperatorias (2.5%): colección pélvica y colección perirrectal, ambas requirieron drenaje radiológico. Cuatro complicaciones requirieron reoperación: absceso epidural, obstrucción del intestino delgado, enterotomía omitida que requirió resección y retención urinaria que requirió revisión del cabestrillo. No hubo mortalidades.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo unicéntrico.CONCLUSIONES:Un enfoque robótico combinado para el prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos es un procedimiento seguro y viable con una tasa relativamente baja de morbilidad y ninguna mortalidad. Esta es la serie de mayor volumen de reconstrucción robótica combinada del suelo pélvico en la literatura y demuestra una baja tasa de complicaciones y una estancia hospitalaria corta. (Traducción-Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez )See Editorial on page 195.

Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is considered a valid option in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, it involves higher costs than the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to determine if less expensive robotic surgery for rectal prolapse can be safely performed.

METHODS

This study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, from 7 November 2020 to 22 November 2021. The cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources in patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with the da Vinci Xi Surgical Systems was analyzed before and after technical modifications, including the reduction of robotic arms and instruments, and the execution of a double minimal peritoneal incision at the pouch of Douglas and sacral promontory (instead of the traditional inverted J incision).

RESULTS

Twenty-two robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were performed [21 females, 95.5%, median age 62.0 (54.8-70.0) years]. After an initial experience performing traditional robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in four patients, we adopted technical modifications in other cases. No major complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. In total, mean cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources was €6995.5 ± 1058.0, €5912.7 ± 877.0, €2797.6 ± 545.6, and €2608.3 ± 351.5, respectively. Technical modifications allowed a significant reduction in the overall cost of hospitalization (€6604.5 ± 589.5 versus €8755.0 ± 906.4, p = 0.001), number of robotic instruments (3.1 ± 0.2 versus 4.0 ± 0.8 units, p = 0.026), and operating room time (201 ± 26 versus 253 ± 16 min, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering our preliminary results, robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with appropriate technical modifications can be cost-effective and safe.

Mesh safety in pelvic surgery: Our experience and outcome of biological mesh used in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) continues to be a popular treatment option for rectal prolapse, obstructive defecation/faecal incontinence and rectoceles. In recent years there have been concerns regarding the safety of mesh placements in the pelvis.

AIM

To assess the safety of the mesh and the outcome of the procedure.

METHODS

Eighty-six patients underwent LVMR with Permacol (Biological) mesh from 2012 to 2018 at University Hospital Wishaw. Forty were treated for obstructive defecation secondary to prolapse, rectocele or internal rectal intussusception, 38 for mixed symptoms obstructive defecation and incontinence, 5 for pain and bleeding secondary to full thickness prolapse and 3 with symptoms of incontinence. Questionnaires for the calculation of Wexner scores for constipation and incontinence were completed by the patients who were followed up in the clinic 12 wk after surgery and again in 6-12 mo. The average review of their notes was 18.3 ± 4.2 mo.

RESULTS

The median Wexner scores for constipation pre-operatively and post-operatively were 14.5 [Interquartile range (IQR): 10.5-18.5] and 3 (IQR: 1-6), respectively, while the median Wexner score for faecal incontinence was 11 (IQR: 7-15) and 2 (IQR: 0-5), respectively (P < 0.01). There were 4 (4.6%) recurrences, 2 cases that presented with erosion of a suture through the rectum and one with diskitis. No mesh complications or mortalities were recorded.

CONCLUSION

LVMR using a Permacol mesh is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of obstructive defecation/faecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, rectoceles and internal rectal prolapse/intussusception.

Pelvic floor peritoneum reconstruction is a protective factor for defecation dysfunction after laparoscopic anterior resection in patients with middle and low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The pelvic cavity is a monolithic structure whose integrity plays an important role in the pelvic organ function. Currently, pelvic floor peritoneum reconstruction (PFPR) is rarely performed during laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer patients. This study evaluated the effect of PFPR using barbed wire during laparoscopic surgery on the postoperative defecation function in middle and low rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study involving a total of 252 middle and low rectal cancer patients who had been subjected to laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection of rectal cancer at Shanghai Changhai Hospital from March 2018 to April 2020. The Wexner and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores were used to evaluate the postoperative defecation function among patients. A Wexner score ≥ 8 and LARS score ≥ 30 were considered to indicate major defecation dysfunction.

RESULTS

A total of 229 patients (52 patients subjected to PFPR) were followed up, and the Wexner and LARS scores were recorded. The follow-up rate was 90.87%, the mean follow-up time was 22.88 ± 6.93 months, the stoma rate was 64.29%, the ileostomy reduction surgical rate was 90.74%, and the stoma duration was 7.64 ± 2.94 months. Regarding the assessment of postoperative defecation dysfunction using the Wexner score, a multivariate analysis revealed that a long operation time (odds ratio [OR], 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.984-0.999, p = 0.026) and radiotherapy (OR, 0.352; 95% CI, 0.156-0.797, p = 0.012) were independent risk factors for major defecation dysfunction, while a high tumor location (OR, 1.318; 95% CI, 1.151-1.657, p = 0.001) and PFPR (OR, 4.770; 95% CI, 1.435-15.857, p = 0.011) were independent protective factors for major defecation dysfunction. Regarding the assessment of the postoperative defecation function using the LARS score, a multivariate analysis revealed that a high tumor location (OR, 1.293; 95% CI, 1.125-1.486, p < 0.001) and PFPR (OR, 3.010; 95% CI, 1.345-6.738, p = 0.007) were independent protective factors for major defecation dysfunction. A subgroup analysis showed that the postoperative Wexner score (3.13 ± 2.79 vs. 4.71 ± 3.45 p = 0.003) and LARS score (21.77 ± 8.62 vs. 25.14 ± 8.78 p = 0.015) were lower for patients with PFPR than for patients without PFPR. Regarding patients with low rectal cancer, those with PFPR had a lower LARS score than those without it (23.62 ± 8.94 vs. 28.40 ± 7.90, p = 0.022), but there was no significant difference in the Wexner score between the groups. A total of 9.76% of patients with PFPR and 48.89% of those without PFPR showed an intestinal accumulation in the sacral front (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PFPR and a high tumor location are protective factors for postoperative defecation dysfunction in middle and low rectal cancer patients. PFPR can be routinely performed during laparoscopic surgery.

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.

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.

Rectal Prolapse: Age-Related Differences in Clinical Presentation and What Bothers Women Most

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse has a diverse symptom profile that affects patients of all ages.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify bothersome symptoms and clinical presentation that motivated patients who have rectal prolapse to seek care, characterize differences in symptom severity with age, and determine factors associated with bothersome symptoms.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained registry.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary referral academic center.

PATIENTS

Included were 129 consecutive women with full-thickness rectal prolapse.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes measured were primary bothersome symptoms, 5-item Cleveland Clinic/Wexner Fecal Incontinence questionnaire, and the 5-item Obstructed Defecation Syndrome questionnaire. Patients were categorized by age <65 vs age ≥65 years.

RESULTS

Cleveland Clinic/Wexner Fecal Incontinence score >9 was more common in older patients (87% vs 60%, p = 0.002). Obstructed Defecation Syndrome score >8 was more common in younger patients (57% vs 28%, p < 0.001). Older patients were more likely than younger patients to report bothersome symptoms of pain (38% vs 19%, p = 0.021) and bleeding (12% vs 2%, p = 0.046). Mucus discharge was reported by most patients (older, 72% vs younger, 66%, p = 0.54) but was bothersome for only 18%, regardless of age. Older patients had more severe prolapse expression than younger patients (at rest, 33% vs 11%; during activity, 26% vs 19%; only with defecation, 40% vs 64%, p = 0.006). Older patients were more likely to seek care within 6 months of prolapse onset (29% vs 11%, p = 0.056). On multivariable regression, increasing age, narcotic use, and nonprotracting prolapse at rest were associated with reporting pain as a primary concern.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center study with a small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal prolapse-related bothersome symptoms and health care utilization differ by age. Although rectal pain is often not commonly associated with prolapse, it bothers many women and motivates older women to undergo evaluation. Patient-reported functional questionnaires may not reflect patients' primary concerns regarding specific symptoms and could benefit from supplementation with questionnaires to elicit individualized symptom priorities. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B492.

PROLAPSO DE RECTO

INFLUENCIA DE LA EDAD EN DIFERENCIAS VINCULADAS CON LA PRESENTACIÓN CLÍNICA Y LOS SÍNTOMAS MAS DESAGRADABLES: El prolapso de recto tiene una gran variedad de síntomas que afectan a pacientes con edades diferentes.Identificar los síntomas mas molestos y la presentación clínica que motivaron a los pacientes con un prolapso de recto a consultar por atención médica, caracterizar las diferencias de gravedad de los síntomas con relación a la edad y determinar los factores asociados con los síntomas mas molestos.Análisis retrospectivo de un registro prospectivo.Centro académico de referencia terciaria.Consecutivamente 129 mujeres que presentaban un prolapso rectal completo.Síntomas y molestias primarias, cuestionario de incontinencia fecal de la Cleveland Clinic / Wexner de 5 ítems, cuestionario de síndrome de defecación obstruida de 5 ítems. Los pacientes fueron categorizados en < 65 años versus ≥ 65 años.El puntaje de incontinencia fecal de la Cleveland Clinic / Wexner > 9 fue más común en pacientes mayores (87% vs 60%, p = 0.002). La puntuación del síndrome de defecación obstructiva > 8 fue más común en pacientes más jóvenes (57% vs 28%, p <0,001). Los pacientes mayores fueron más propensos que los pacientes jóvenes a informar síntomas y molestias de dolor (38% vs 19%, p = 0.021) y sangrado (12% vs 2%, p = 0.046). La mayoría de los pacientes informaron secresión de moco (mayores, 72% frente a más jóvenes, 66%, p = 0,54), pero sólo el 18% tuvo molestias, independientemente de la edad. Los pacientes mayores tenían una exteriorización de prolapso más grave que los pacientes jóvenes (en reposo, 33% frente a 11%; durante la actividad, 26% frente a 19%; solo con defecación, 40% frente a 64%, p = 0,006). Los pacientes mayores tenían más probabilidades de buscar atención médica dentro de los 6 meses posteriores al inicio del prolapso (29% frente a 11%, p = 0.056). Tras la regresión multivariable, el aumento de la edad, el uso de narcóticos y el prolapso no prolongado en reposo se asociaron con la notificación de dolor como queja principal.Centro único; tamaño de muestra pequeño.Los síntomas y molestias relacionadas con el prolapso rectal y la solicitud de atención médica difieren según la edad. Aunque el dolor rectal a menudo no se asocia comúnmente con el prolapso, incomoda a muchas pacientes y motiva a las mujeres mayores a someterse a un examen médico. Los cuestionarios funcionales con las respuestas de las pacientes pueden no reflejar las preocupaciones principales de éstos con respecto a los síntomas específicos y podrían requerir cuestionarios complementarios para así obtener prioridades individualizadas con relación a los síntomas identificados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B492. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

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.

Midterm functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Although long-term crude outcomes of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse (ERP) have been documented, repetitive functional and quality of life (QOL) assessments are scarce. This study assessed midterm annual functional results and QOL after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for ERP.

METHODS

This study consisted of 58 patients and was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, the Constipation Scoring System, and QOL instruments (ie 36-item Short-Form Health Survey and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale) were administered before and after operation.

RESULTS

There was no mortality or major morbidity. After a median follow-up of 49 months (6-92 months), recurrence of ERP was noted in one patient (2%). There were no mesh-related complications. The median Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score was significantly reduced at 3 months (34 [10-61] vs 12 [0-50], P < 0.0001) and remained significantly reduced for 5 years. The median Constipation Scoring System score was significantly reduced at 3 months (14 [9-20] vs 7 [0-16], P < 0.0001) and remained significantly reduced for 4 years. No patients developed new-onset constipation. All of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scales significantly improved overtime for 4 years. All of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scales were significantly improved at 3 and 6 months, but none of the scales significantly improved after 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for ERP was associated with low morbidity, low recurrence, and a midterm improvement in function and fecal incontinence-specific QOL.

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.