How to deal with complications after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: lessons learnt from a tertiary referral centre

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse often affects women but may also affect men. This systematic review aimed to provide outcomes of surgery for complete rectal prolapse reported in studies with a predominantly male population.

METHODS

This PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review searched PubMed and Scopus between January 2000 and February 2024; Google Scholar was queried for studies reporting outcomes of complete rectal prolapse surgery in predominately (> 90%) male populations. Main outcome measures were recurrence, complications, operative time, and bowel function.

RESULTS

Eight studies (452 patients; median age 45.6 years) were included; 80.5% of patients underwent abdominal procedures whereas 19.5% underwent perineal procedures. The prevalence of recurrence was 11.2% after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR), 0.8% after posterior mesh rectopexy (PMR), 0 after resection rectopexy, and 19.3% after perineal procedures. The prevalence of complications was 13.9% after VMR, 13.1% after PMR, 43.3% after resection rectopexy, and 17.4% after perineal procedures. The most improvement in constipation was noted after resection rectopexy (83.3-100%) and in fecal incontinence (FI) was noted after posterior mesh rectopexy (86.4-90%). Abdominal procedures had lower rates of recurrence (6% vs. 19.3%, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21-1.18, p = 0.113), similar complication rates (14.3% vs. 13.6%, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.06-2.9, p = 0.374), and longer operative times (116 ± 47.2 vs. 74.2 ± 23.6 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of rectal prolapse in male patients undergoing abdominal procedures was associated with longer operative times, lower recurrence rates, and similar complications to perineal procedures. PMR and resection rectopexy had the lowest recurrence. The most improvement in FI and constipation was noted after PMR and resection rectopexy, respectively.

Current diagnostic tools and treatment modalities for rectal prolapse

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

Mesh erosion into the rectum after laparoscopic posterior rectopexy: A case report

Introduction

Rectal prolapse typically presents in elderly women with protruding full-thickness rectum from the anus. Rectopexy using mesh is known to be a highly curative treatment for rectal prolapse, however, this procedure carries the risk of severe complication as mesh erosion.

Presentation of case

A 78-year-old woman who had undergone laparoscopic posterior rectopexy 4 years earlier visited the outpatient clinic with a complaint of bloody stool. A colonoscopy and computed tomography revealed that part of the mesh had migrated into the rectal lumen at 8 cm from the anal verge. Based on the above findings, a diagnosis of mesh erosion into the rectum was made. Complete removal of the mesh and tacker with rectal resection was performed. Before rectopexy, the patient had severe fecal incontinence, and her anal sphincter function was decreased, therefore, Permanent colostomy was indicated instead of anastomosis. In the resected specimen, the mesh was folded and placed in the mesenteric fat of the posterior wall of the rectum, with the corner of the edge of the mesh protruding into the inside lumen.

Discussion

Mesh erosion typically occurs when using mesh made of synthetic mesh and non-absorbable threads; it might induce chronic irritation and friction due to mesh shrinkage.

Conclusion

To prevent mesh erosion, it is important to pay attention to the mesh materials used and ensure secure fixation.

•

Mesh erosion into rectum after Laparoscopic posterior rectopexy was reported.

•

Complete removal of the mesh and tacker with rectal resection was needed.

•

Colostomy was made because of existence of severe fecal incontinence, preoperatively.

•

Paying attention to the Shrinkage and secure fixation of synthetic mesh.

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.

Predictive Factors for Recurrence of External Rectal Prolapse after Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy

Objectives:

This study aimed to evaluate factors that contribute to the recurrence of external rectal prolapse (ERP) following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR).

Methods:

All patients who underwent LVR using synthetic meshes between 2011 and 2018 were prospectively included. A standard questionnaire including the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) and Constipation Scoring System (CSS) was administered preoperatively and postoperatively. Defecography was performed 6 months postoperatively. Univariate and backward stepwise multivariate Cox analysis was performed to determine the prognostic factors of recurrence.

Results:

In total, 132 patients with a median follow-up of 46 months were included. The overall recurrence rate was 6.8% (n = 9), as confirmed by defecography at 6 months in six of the patients. None of the patients developed mesh erosion. FISI and CSS scores were significantly reduced at 3 months and remained significantly reduced for 3 years. Multivariate analyses revealed that the predictors of recurrence included male sex (hazards ratio, 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-43.0) and age >80 years (hazards ratio, 10.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-86.3). Eight patients with recurrence underwent surgery via Delorme's procedure (n = 7) and posterior rectopexy (n = 1). Two patients with new-onset rectoanal intussusception and one with uncorrected sigmoidocoele underwent repeat LVR.

Conclusions:

LVR is effective in treating ERP with low morbidity and low recurrence. Male patients and patients older than 80 years are at increased risk of recurrence. Hence, the LVR technique should be modified or coupled with other perineal procedures when treating ERP, especially in male patients.

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.

SURGICAL TREATMENT OF IATROGENIC COMPLEX RECURRENT EXTRASPHINCTER ANORECTAL FISTULA: A CLINICAL CASE

Background: Anorectal fistula is a benign disease with an average prevalence of 1.69/10,000 population. The disease significantly reduces the life quality and has a tendency to relapse. Repeated surgical treatment can lead to anal sphincter impairment. Paraproctitis is the main anorectal fistulas cause. However, there are also iatrogenic traumatic fistulas that occur after various anorectal surgical interventions.Clinical case: A 44-year old female patient applied to the MSU University clinic in March 2020 with perineal wound with permanent purulent discharge. During examination perianal soft tissue defect was determined, the external fistula opening (40x25x25cm) was visualized at the wound bottom, the internal fistula opening (2x3mm) was visualized at 12h of the clock dial. The perianal area is deformed due to scarring. In 2016 the patient underwent surgical «rectocele elimination, posterior colporaphy, levatoroplasty, plastic surgery of the anterior rectal wall». Obstructive defecation syndrome developed during postoperative period, and repeated surgical treatment was performed – anterior anosfincterolevatoroplasty, Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy.On the 9th day, there was a «perianal soft tissue rupture» with bleeding and «local anterior rectal wall damage in the suprasphincter zone». Then «the rectal defect suturing» was performed. The perineal wound was left open. The patient was reoperated in 3 months due to a rectovaginal fistula with no effect. A fistulectomy was performed at the Moscow State University Medical Center with the removal of the anal canal defect by mucosal-submucosal flap. The surgical wound heals by secondary tension.Conclusion: The current studies describe a small number of cases of anorectal fistulas secondary to anorectal surgery. At the same time, there is no data on the further surgical management of such patients. It is important to present the iatrogenic anorectal fistulas cases, not only to analyze the fistula cause, but also to describe the surgical treatment method and its efficacy.

Minimally invasive organ-preserving approaches in the management of mesh erosion after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

AIM

This is a systematic approach for minimally invasive methods in the management of mesh erosion after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

METHODS

All patients managed with organ-preserving techniques for mesh erosion were identified from a prospective database and clinical records were reviewed. Each patient was contacted via telephone and a structured questionnaire was applied. A Likert score was used to assess patient symptoms and overall satisfaction with management. One or more of the following techniques were used: (i) transanal or transvaginal trimming/excision of exposed mesh and sutures, with or without using transanal endoscopic micro surgery or transanal minimally invasive surgery; (ii) laparoscopic pelvic assessment and detachment of mesh from the sacral promontory.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were managed for mesh erosion with organ-preserving techniques. All were women with a median age of 60 years [interquartile range (IQR) 53.5-68.5]. Vaginal, rectal, perineal erosion and recto-vaginal fistulation occurred in five, four, one and one patient respectively. Vaginal erosions presented at a median of 51 months (IQR 36-56) after index laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared to 17.5 months (IQR 14.5-27.25) for the rectal erosions. Median follow-up time was 24 months (IQR 19-49). Four of the meshes (36%) were removed completely whereas seven (63%) were partially removed. Vaginal erosions required a median of two procedures to achieve resolution as opposed to five for rectal. Out of 11 patients, eight were satisfied with the outcome of their management, whereas two were not and one remained ambivalent.

CONCLUSION

An organ-sparing minimally invasive approach is feasible in managing mesh erosions but requires multiple procedures and months to complete.

Position statement by the Pelvic Floor Society on behalf of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland on the use of mesh in ventral mesh rectopexy

The following position statement forms part of a response to the current concerns regarding use of mesh to perform rectal prolapse surgery. It highlights the actions being pursued by the Pelvic Floor Society (TPFS) regarding clinical governance in relation to ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The following are summary recommendations. Available evidence suggests that mesh morbidity for VMR is far lower than that seen in transvaginal procedures (the main subject of current concern) and lower than that observed following other abdomino-pelvic procedures for urogenital prolapse, e.g. laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. VMR should be performed by adequately trained surgeons who work within a multidisciplinary team (MDT) framework. Within this, it is mandatory to discuss all patients considered for surgery at an MDT meeting. Clinical outcomes of surgery and any complications resulting from surgery should be recorded in the TPFS-hosted national database (registry) available for this purpose; in addition, all patients should be considered for entry into ongoing and planned UK/European randomized studies where this is feasible. A move towards accreditation of UK units performing VMR will improve performance and outcomes in the long term. An enhanced programme of training including staged porcine, cadaveric and preceptorship sessions will ensure the competence of surgeons undertaking VMR. Enhanced consent forms and patient information booklets are being developed, and these will help both surgeons and patients. There is weak observational evidence that technical aspects of the procedure can be optimized to reduce morbidity rates. Suture material choice may contribute towards morbidity. The available evidence is insufficient to support the use of one mesh over another (biologic vs synthetic); however, the use of polyester mesh is associated with increased morbidity.

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.

Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse in the Laparoscopic Era; A Review of the Literature

Rectal prolapse is associated with debilitating symptoms including the discomfort of prolapsing tissue, mucus discharge, hemorrhage, and defecation disorders of fecal incontinence, constipation, or both. The aim of treatment is to eliminate the prolapse, correct associated bowel function and prevent new onset of bowel dysfunction. Historically, abdominal procedures have been indicated for young fit patients, whereas perineal approaches have been preferred in older frail patients with significant comorbidity. Recently, the laparoscopic procedures with their advantages of less pain, early recovery, and lower morbidity have emerged as an effective tool for the treatment of rectal prolapse. This article aimed to review the current evidence base for laparoscopic procedures and perineal procedures, and to compare the results of various techniques. As a result, laparoscopic procedures showed a relatively low recurrence rate than the perineal procedures with comparable complication rates. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy had a small advantage in the improvement of constipation or the prevention of new-onset constipation compared with other laparoscopic procedures. However, the optimal surgical repair has not been clearly demonstrated because of the significant heterogeneity of available studies. An individualized approach is recommended for every patient, considering age, comorbidity, and the underlying anatomical and functional disorders.

Laparoscopic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Suspension (Pops) Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Treatment of Rectal Prolapse: Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and pelvic organ prolapse suspension surgery (POPS) in management of patients presenting with rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Our study was a prospective cohort trial in which 120 female patients with complete rectal prolapse were included, 60 patients had had VMR and the other 60 had had POPS as a surgical management for complete rectal prolapse. Results had been compared 6 months postoperatively regarding operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, complications of surgery including recurrence of the rectal prolapse, the efficacy of each operation in treatment of rectal prolapse and associated symptoms.

RESULTS

The patients were assessed 6 months postoperatively. There was no significant statistical difference regarding hospital stay and postoperative pain. Operative time was significantly shorter in POPS in comparison with VMR (P value < 0.05). VMR showed slight improvement regarding constipation and continence scores; however, this was statistically significant. VMR showed less complications compared to POPS. Complications with rectopexy happened only with 4 patients compared to 24 patients in POPS groups, 2 cases of recurrence in rectopexy group compared to 6 cases of recurrence in POPS.

CONCLUSION

POPS is comparable to VMR in management of rectal prolapse and in improving the ODS symptoms. Thus, POPS can be used as easier, faster option to treat rectal prolapse in selected patients.

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.

Comparison of Delorme-Thiersch Operation Outcomes in Men and Women With Rectal Prolapse

Purpose

The laparoscopic rectopexy has become increasingly popular with verified stability, surgical route selection should be tailored to individual patient characteristics rather than operative risk. The perineal approach is useful in young male patients who need to preserve fertility. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of men and women who underwent Delorme-Thiersch procedures and analyze the postoperative outcomes of the perineal approach by sex.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 293 patients who underwent Delorme-Thiersch operations in Seoul Song Do Colorectal Hospital between January 2011 and September 2017. Patient clinical characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed by sex. We analyzed surgical outcomes with preoperative and 3-month postoperative incontinence questionnaires, constipation levels, and anal manometry.

Results

In this study, men with rectal prolapse were younger than women with the same condition. American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classifications were higher in women and women had more L-spine X-ray and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency test abnormalities. Anorectal manometry pressures were higher in men. Men also had longer operation times and hospital stays and more postoperative complications (8 T ring infections, 6 patients with bleeding, 3 with strictures, 2 with severe pain, and 2 with rectal perforations). The recurrence rate was higher among women.

Conclusion

Men with rectal prolapse were younger, healthier, and had relatively better anorectal function than women. The Delorme-Thiersch operation in men promoted lower recurrence rates and was advantageous in preserving the fertility of young patients, but the incidence of complications was also higher in men. Adequate counseling and preparation for the possibility of complications are needed.

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.

Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of the predictors for recurrence

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has proved effective in the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse. The present meta-analysis aimed to determine the predictive factors of recurrence of full-thickness external rectal prolapse after LVMR.

METHODS

An organized, systematic search of electronic databases including PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochran library was conducted in adherence to PRISMA guidelines. Studies that reported the outcome of LVMR in patients with full-thickness external rectal prolapse were included according to predefined criteria. A meta-regression analysis and sub-group meta-analyses were performed to recognize the patient and technical factors that were associated with higher recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies comprising 1242 patients of a median age of 60 years were included. The median operation time was 122.3 min. Conversion to open surgery was required in 22 (1.8%) patients. The weighted mean complication rate across the studies was 12.4% (95% CI 8.4-16.4) and the weighted mean rate of recurrence of full-thickness external rectal prolapse was 2.8% (95% CI 1.4-4.3). The median follow-up duration was 23 months. Male gender (SE = 0.018, p = 0.008) and length of the mesh (SE = - 0.007, p = 0.025) were significantly associated with full-thickness recurrence of rectal prolapse. The weighted mean rates of improvement in fecal incontinence and constipation after LVMR were 79.3% and 71%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LVMR is an effective and safe option in treatment of full-thickness external rectal prolapse with low recurrence and complication rates. Male patients and length of the mesh may potentially have a significant impact on recurrence of rectal prolapse after LVMR.

Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: Functional Outcomes after Surgery

Aims  Rectal prolapse is a debilitating and unpleasant condition adversely affecting the quality of life. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is recognized as one of the treatment options. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes after a standardized LVMR.

Methods  A cohort of patients who underwent LVMR from 2011 to 2015 were contacted and asked to fill questionnaires about their symptoms before and after the surgery. Three questionnaires based on measurement of Wexner fecal incontinence (WFI), obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS), and Birmingham Bowel and Urinary Symptom (BBUS) scores were used to assess the changes in postoperative functional outcomes. Some additional questions were also added to further assess bowel dysfunction.

Results  There were 58 female patients with a mean age of 62.74 ± 15.20 (26–86) years in this cohort. About 70% of the patients participated in the study and returned the filled questionnaires. There was a significant overall improvement across all three scores (WFI: p  = 0.001, ODS: p  = 0.001, and BBUS: p  = 0.001). Some individual components in the scoring systems did not improve to patient's satisfaction. No perioperative complication or conversion to an open procedure was reported in this study. Three recurrences were seen in the redo cases.

Conclusion  LVMR is a promising way of dealing with rectal prolapse. A careful patient selection, appropriate preoperative workup, and a meticulous surgical technique undoubtedly transform the postoperative outcomes.

Resection Rectopexy is Still an Acceptable Operation for Rectal Prolapse

The aim of this study was to compare resection rectopexy (RR) with ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). This institutional review board–approved retrospective study compared patients with rectal prolapse, who underwent RR or VMR from 2009 to 2016. The primary end point was the comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence rates. Seventy-nine RR and 108 VMR patients qualified. Using propensity score matching, the two groups were not significantly different (P = 0.818). There were no differences regarding gender (female 103 vs 72; P = 0.4) and age (59.3 vs 53.9; P = 0.054). Patients in the VMR group had a greater body mass index (25.5 vs 22.9; P = 0.001) and poorer physical status (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3 57.4% vs 41.8%; P = 0.04). The VMR group had more: robotic approaches (69.4% vs 8.9%; P < 0.001), concomitant urogynecological procedures (63 vs 19; P < 0.001), and longer operative time (269 vs 206 minutes; P < 0.001) but a reduced length of stay (2 vs 5 days; P < 0.001). The median follow-up (16 vs 26 months; P = 0.125) and the median time of recurrence (14 vs 38 months; P = 0.163) were similar. No differences were observed for complications or recurrence (10.2% vs 10.1%; P = 0.43). We failed to identify superiority based on surgical 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.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: A viable option in procidentia with redundant sigmoid - An Indian perspective

Introduction:

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has gained widespread acceptance for the management of complete rectal prolapse (CRP). However, there have been concerns considering its use in patients with a redundant sigmoid colon. This study was conducted to evaluate the anatomical and functional results following LVMR, particularly in cases of CRP with a redundant sigmoid colon.

Materials and Methods:

Retrospective analysis of 25 patients who underwent LVMR from January 2011 to September 2016 was performed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the duration of follow-up. Group A (long-term) with follow-up >3 years and Group B (mid-term) <3 years.

Results:

The study included 25 patients (M:F = 1.5:1) with a median age of 38 years. Eighty-eight percent of the patients had a redundant sigmoid colon. Significant improvement in post-operative Wexner score as compared to pre-operative values was seen in patients with pre-existing constipation (P < 0.0001). In patients presenting with faecal incontinence (FI), significant improvement in post-operative St. Mark's incontinence score was observed. Functional outcomes remain consistent in long-term follow-up (>3 years).

Conclusions:

LVMR seems to be a feasible surgical procedure with minimum morbidity and good long-term functional outcomes. It provides satisfactory results in patients with redundant sigmoid colon and improves pre-existing constipation and FI.

Should we offer ventral rectopexy to patients with recurrent external rectal prolapse?

BACKGROUND

For patients with rectal prolapse undergoing Ventral Rectopexy (VR), the impact of prior prolapse surgery on prolapse recurrence is not well described.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare recurrence rates after VR in patients undergoing primary and repeat rectal prolapse repairs.

DESIGN

This study is a prospective cohort study.

METHODS

IRB-approved prospective data registry of consecutive patients undergoing VR for full-thickness external rectal prolapse between 2009 and 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rectal prolapse recurrence was defined as either external prolapse through the anal sphincters or symptomatic rectal mucosa prolapse warranting additional surgery. Preoperative and postoperative morbidity and functional outcomes were analyzed. Actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 108 VRs were performed during the study period. Seventy-two were primary and 36 repeat repairs. Seven cases were open, 23 laparoscopic, and 78 robotic. Six cases were converted from laparoscopic/robotic to open. In 63 patients, VR was combined with gynecological procedures. There were no statistical differences between primary or recurrent prolapse for the following: demographics, operative time, concomitant gynecologic procedures, complications, blood loss, and graft material type. Length of stay was longer in patients with a history of prior prolapse surgery (p = 0.01). Prolapse recurrence rates for primary repairs were reported at 1.4, 6.9, and 9.7% and for recurrent prolapse procedures 13.9, 25, and 25% at 1, 3, and 5 years (p = 0.13). Mean length of follow-up was similar between groups. Time to recurrence was significantly shorter in patients undergoing repeat prolapse surgery 8.8 vs 30.7 months (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

VR is a better option for patients undergoing primary rectal prolapse repair.

Laparoscopic Vaginal Suspension and Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic procedures for the treatment of patients with a rectal prolapse have gained increasing worldwide acceptance because they have lower recurrence and better functional outcome than perineal procedures. Nevertheless, ideal surgical methods are still not available. We propose a new surgical technique, laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy, for correcting a full-thickness rectal prolapse and/or middle-compartment prolapse. This study assessed the short-term outcomes for patients who underwent laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy.

METHODS

Between April 2014 and April 2016, 69 female patients underwent laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy to correct a rectal prolapse. Demographics, medical histories, and surgical and follow-up details were collected from their medical records. In addition to the clinical outcome, we repeated defecation proctography and a questionnaire regarding functional results three months after surgery.

RESULTS

No major morbidities or no mortalities occurred. The defecation proctography confirmed excellent anatomical result in all cases. Of 7 patients with combined middle-compartment prolapses, we observed good anatomical correction. During follow-up, full-thickness recurrence occurred in one patient. Preoperative fecal incontinence was improved significantly at 3 months (mean Wexner score: 12.35 vs. 7.71; mean FISI: 33.29 vs. 21.07; P < 0.001). Analysis of responses to the fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQOL) questionnaire showed overall improvement at 3 months compared to the preoperative baseline (mean pre- and postoperative FIQOL scores: 12.11 vs. 14.39; P < 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy is a new combined procedure for the treatment of patients with rectal prolapses. It has excellent functional outcomes and minimal morbidity and can correct and prevent middlecompartment prolapses.

Prophylactic mesh use during primary stoma formation to prevent parastomal hernia

Introduction Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common problem following stoma formation. The optimal technique for stoma formation is unknown although recent studies have focused on whether placement of prophylactic mesh at stoma formation can reduce PSH rates. The aim of this study was to systematically review use of prophylactic mesh versus no mesh with regard to occurrence of PSH and peristomal complications. Methods A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase™ and the Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials that analysed placement of prophylactic mesh versus no mesh at time of initial surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects methods. Results A total of 506 studies were identified by our search strategy. Of these, 8 studies were included, involving 430 patients (217 mesh vs 213 no mesh). Prophylactic mesh placement resulted in a significantly lower rate of PSH formation (42/217 [19.4%] vs 92/213 [43.2%]) with a combined risk ratio of 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-0.75, p=0.004). Placement of prophylactic mesh did not result in increased peristomal complications (15/218 [6.9%] vs 16/227 [7.0%]) with a combined risk ratio of 1.0 (95% CI: 0.49-2.01, p=0.990). Conclusions Prophylactic placement of mesh at primary stoma formation may reduce the incidence of PSH, without an increase in peristomal complications. However, the overall quality of the randomised controlled trials included in the meta-analysis was poor, and should prompt caution regarding the applicability of the findings of the individual studies and the meta-analysis to everyday practice.

Incidence and surgical treatment of synthetic mesh-related infectious complications after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic-related infection and erosion occurring after a laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) are rare complications, and their importance is often underestimated. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence rate and surgical management of these complications in LVR patients with polyester (PE) or polypropylene (PP) prostheses.

METHODS

From January 2004 to June 2012, 149 patients underwent LVR with PE and 176 underwent LVR with PP. Surgical management and rate of infectious and erosive prosthesis-related complications, depending on the type of prosthesis, were described and compared. Functional results after complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Five patients from the PE prosthesis group (3.3 %), compared with two patients from the PP prosthesis group (1.1 %), experienced prosthesis-related infection or erosion (p = 0.16). The rate of erosion alone was 3.3 % in patients with a PE prosthesis, and 0.55 % in patients with a PP prosthesis (p = 0.06). The average time until clinical diagnosis of a prosthesis-related complication was identical for both groups: 31 months (range 3-62 months). All patients underwent surgical removal of the prosthesis: For the five patients from the PE group, complete removal was performed by laparoscopy associated with a transanal procedure. For the two patients in the PP mesh group, laparoscopy was ineffective in removing the mesh which was partially removed through a subsequent transanal procedure. None of the patients had a protective stoma, and in all patients the complication had resolved 12 months after removal. Only one patient had worsening functional symptoms (fecal incontinence) after prosthesis removal.

CONCLUSIONS

When a prosthesis-related infection or erosion occurs, treatment consists in the surgical removal of the prosthesis by laparoscopy/and/or a transanal procedure. Functional symptoms do not routinely recur after prosthesis removal.

Short term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse

Objective:

To find out the short term outcomes of effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

Methods:

It was a descriptive case series study of 31 consecutive patients of rectal prolapse in Colorectal division of Ward 2, Department of General surgery, Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Center, Karachi, from November 2009 to November 2015. These patients were admitted through outpatient department with complains of something coming out of anus, constipation and per rectal bleeding. All patients were clinically examined and baseline investigations were done. All patients underwent laparoscopic repair with ventral mesh placement on rectum.

Results:

Among 31 patients, mean age was 45 years range (20 - 72). While females were 14(45%) and males 17(55%). We observed variety of presentations, including solitary rectal ulcers (n=4) and rectocele (n=3) but full thickness rectal prolapse was predominant(n=24). All patients had laparoscopic repair with mesh placement. Average hospital stay was three days. Out of 31 patients, there was one (3.2%) recurrence. Port site minor infection in 3(9.7%) patients, while conversion to open approach was done in two (6.4%), postoperative ileus observed in two (6.4%) patients. one(3.2%) patient developed intractable back pain and mesh was removed six weeks after the operation. one(4.8%) patient complained of abdominal pain off and on postoperatively. No patient developed denovo or worsening constipation while constipation was improved in 21 patients (67%). Sexual dysfunction such as dysperunia in females and impotence in males was not detected in follow up.

Conclusions:

This study provides the limited evidence that nerve sparing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is safe and effective treatment of external and symptomatic internal rectal prolapse. It has better cosmetic and functional outcome as advantages of minimal access and comparable recurrence rate.

Optimizing Treatment for Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse is associated with debilitating symptoms and leads to both functional impairment and anatomic distortion. Symptoms include rectal bulge, mucous drainage, bleeding, incontinence, constipation, tenesmus, as well as discomfort, pressure, and pain. The only cure is surgical. The optimal surgical repair is not yet defined though laparoscopic rectopexy with mesh is emerging as a more durable approach. The chosen approach should be individually tailored, taking into account factors such as presence of pelvic floor defects and coexistence of vaginal prolapse, severe constipation, surgical fitness, and whether the patient has had a previous prolapse procedure. Consideration of a multidisciplinary approach is critical in patients with concomitant vaginal prolapse. Surgeons must weigh their familiarity with each approach and should have in their armamentarium both perineal and abdominal approaches. Previous barriers to abdominal procedures, such as age and comorbidities, are waning as minimally invasive approaches have gained acceptance. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is one such approach offering relatively low morbidity, low recurrence rates, and good functional improvement. However, proficiency with this procedure may require advanced training. Robotic rectopexy is another burgeoning approach which facilitates suturing in the pelvis. Successful rectal prolapse surgeries improve function and have low recurrence rates, though it is important to note that correcting the prolapse does not assure functional improvement.

A novel technique of introducing the mesh at the distal dissection while performing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) is considered an effective treatment for rectal prolapse and/or rectoanal intussusception. After the dissection of the rectovaginal septum down to the pelvic floor, a strip of mesh is introduced and should be secured as distally as possible. We have developed a novel technique of introducing the mesh at the distal dissection.

METHOD

A nylon thread with straight needle was passed through the posterior wall of vagina at the distal extent of the dissection, which was caught in the abdominal cavity and fixed at the end of the mesh extracorporeally. The mesh was then introduced, pulled toward the pelvic floor and settled at the pierced site by the perineal operator.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight female patients underwent LVR using this technique. There were no intra-operative and postoperative mesh-related complications. The mean distance from the vaginal ostium to the point of passing a nylon thread through the posterior wall of the vagina was 2 cm. Postoperative proctography showed the anatomical correction in 47 of the 48 patients who were examined.

CONCLUSION

The surgeon can confirm that the mesh is introduced and secured at the distal dissection by using this technique while performing LVR.

[Alloplastic material in prolapse surgery : Indications and postoperative outcome of ventral rectopexy]

BACKGROUND

In rectopexy the use of meshes provides stability by mechanical support as well as by the induction of scar formation; however, one of the problems of conventional methods of mesh rectopexy is that many patients postoperatively suffer from functional disorders, such as fecal incontinence and stool evacuation disorders. One reason is the damage of vegetative nerves following dorsal and lateral mobilization of the rectum, which is required for positioning of the mesh. In 2004 D'Hoore and Penninckx first described the method of ventral rectopexy, a new technique of mesh rectopexy which allows preservation of the autonomic nerves.

OBJECTIVE

Does ventral rectopexy provide advantages regarding functional outcome, complications and recurrence rates?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was carried out in the databases PubMed and Medline for studies on ventral rectoplexy. Presentation and analysis of the current state of relevant studies relating to ventral rectopexy.

RESULTS

Ventral rectopexy is characterized by a low complication rate and good functional results in terms of improvement of incontinence, constipation and stool evacuation disorders. The indications for ventral rectopexy are considered in patients with external prolapse of the rectum. Also in a well-selected patient population internal prolapse, rectocele as well as enterocele accompanied by obstructive defecation syndrome represent relative indications for ventral rectopexy.

CONCLUSION

In order to obtain a valid assessment of the value of this procedure it is crucial to improve the current lack of evidence (level 3) by prospective randomized studies that compare ventral rectopexy with other surgical techniques and nonsurgical treatment options.

Recurrence of rectal prolapse following rectopexy: a pooled analysis of 532 patients

AIM

The study was designed to address the unanswered question of the influence of the extent of rectal mobilization, the type of rectal fixation and the surgical access (open vs laparoscopic) on recurrence rates following abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP).

METHOD

Individual patient data were pooled and data merging was performed following comparison of variable definitions to ensure similarity in definitions. Recurrence after rectopexy was defined as the presence of FTRP on physical examination. The impact of categorical factors on recurrence was assessed using Fisher's exact and the chi-squared tests. Recurrence-free survival curves were generated for patients and differences in time to recurrence were compared using the log rank test. Factors passing univariate screening with a P value < 0.1 were included in a multivariate model.

RESULTS

After data matching and merging, 532 patients were included. The duration of follow-up ranged from 12 to 235 months. There were 46 (8.6%) recurrences at a median follow-up of 60 months. Mean age was 53.6 ± 17 years, 359 (67.5%) were female, the mean length of external prolapse was 6.3 ± 4 cm, and previous abdominal surgery had taken place in 33.7%. Four variables were identified on initial univariate screening as being related to recurrence. They included a history of incontinence (P = 0.09), constipation (P = 0.018), the extent of rectal mobilization (P = 0.004) and the role of sigmoid resection (P = 0.057). Using multivariate analysis, only the degree of mobilization was independently associated with recurrence (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Circumferential rectal mobilization during rectopexy was associated with a decreased long-term recurrence rate. The type of rectal fixation and the type of surgical access did not influence recurrence.

Recurrence rate after Delorme's procedure with simultaneous placement of a Thiersch suture

Introduction Rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition usually affecting elderly women. The management is generally surgical but the optimal operation remains unclear. The recurrence rate after Delorme's procedure has been found to be similar to that for an abdominal approach. Thiersch sutures have been associated with high rates of complications and recurrence. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of Delorme's procedure with those of a combined Delorme-Thiersch procedure. Methods A retrospective case note review was performed of all patients who underwent Delorme's procedure for rectal prolapse between 2008 and 2014 in a single centre. Results Sixty-seven patients (63 women) underwent Delorme's procedure during the study period. The majority (85%) of patients were over 75 years old. Twelve patients had a Thiersch suture placed at the time of the procedure. The median length of stay was 3 days (range: 0-19 days). Postoperative bleeding requiring either transfusion or readmission occurred in five patients (7.5%) and two patients (3.0%) were readmitted with pain. There was no difference in the rate of complications regardless of whether a Thiersch suture had been placed. Recurrence occurred in 8.3% of those who had a Thiersch suture compared with 21.8% of those who did not (p=0.26). There was no difference in the median time to recurrence between the groups. Conclusions There was no increase in complications after placement of a Thiersch suture with Delorme's procedure. The rate of recurrence could potentially be decreased with this combined technique. Additional studies are required to investigate this further.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in complex pelvic floor disorder

AIM

For the treatment of complex pelvic organ prolapse, many different surgical procedures are described without any comparative studies available. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy after D'Hoore is one of the methods, which is publicized to treat patients with symptomatic rectocele, enterocele and rectal prolapse.

METHOD

All patients who received ventral mesh rectopexy since 07/10 for symptomatic rectocele, enterocele and possible rectal prolapse I ° or II ° in terms of a complex pelvic floor disorder were included in this follow-up study. The Wexner score for incontinence was recorded (range 0-20), the constipation score of Herold (r6-30) was evaluated as well as supplementary questions compiled by D'Hoore concerning outlet symptoms (r0-20). In addition, the quality of life (SF-12) was requested.

RESULTS

Thirty-one women were operated in the period, and 27 were eligible to be included in the present study. Median follow-up was 22 months (2-39). The preoperative Wexner score was in median 8 (0-20), going down to 6 (0-20) without significance (p = 0.735). The constipation score decreased significantly from median 14 (9-21) to 11 (6-25) (p = 0.007). The median score after D'Hoore was preoperatively 8 (4-16) and 4.5 (0-17) postoperatively (p = 0.004). The SF-12 values were preoperatively significantly reduced compared to the normal population; postoperatively, they equalized.

CONCLUSION

Two years after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, constipation and quality of life improve significantly in patients with complex pelvic organ prolapse. The grade of incontinence remains essentially the same, but was not the dominant clinical problem in the treated patients of our study.

STATEMENT

The improvement in constipation and quality of life after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for obstructive defecation is encouraging. However, the impact on sexual life differs; some patients improve but a relevant number reports a change for the worse.

Long-term Outcome After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: An Observational Study of 919 Consecutive Patients

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter study aims to assess long-term functional outcome, early and late (mesh-related) complications, and recurrences after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) for rectal prolapse syndromes in a large cohort of consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcome data for prolapse repair are rare. A high incidence of mesh-related problems has been noted after transvaginal approaches using nonresorbable meshes.

METHODS

All patients treated with LVR at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands and the University Hospital Leuven, Belgium between January 1999 and March 2013 were enrolled in this study. All data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for recurrences and mesh-related problems.

RESULTS

919 consecutive patients (869 women; 50 men) underwent LVR. A 10-year recurrence rate of 8.2% (95% confidence interval, 3.7-12.7) for external rectal prolapse repair was noted. Mesh-related complications were recorded in 18 patients (4.6%), of which mesh erosion to the vagina occurred in 7 patients (1.3%). In 5 of these patients, LVR was combined with a perineotomy. Both rates of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) after LVR compared to the preoperative incidence (11.1% vs 37.5% for incontinence and 15.6% vs 54.0% for constipation).

CONCLUSIONS

LVR is safe and effective for the treatment of different rectal prolapse syndromes. Long-term recurrence rates are in line with classic types of mesh rectopexy and occurrence of mesh-related complications is rare.

Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a recognized treatment for posterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this review is to provide a synopsis of the evidence for biological mesh use in VMR, the most widely recognized surgical technique for posterior compartment POP.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed was conducted using the search terms "VMR," "ventral mesh rectopexy," or "mesh rectopexy." Six studies were identified.

RESULTS

About 268/324 patients underwent ventral rectopexy using biological mesh with a further 6 patients having a combination of synthetic and biological mesh. Recurrence was reported in 20 patients; however, 6 were from studies where data on biological mesh could not be extracted. There are no RCTs in VMR surgery and no studies have directly compared types of biological mesh. Cross-linked porcine dermal collagen is the most commonly used mesh and has not been associated with mesh erosion, infection, or fistulation in this review. The level of evidence available on the use of biological mesh in VMR is of low quality (level 4).

CONCLUSION

Ventral mesh rectopexy has become prevalent for posterior compartment POP. The evidence base for its implementation is not strong and the quality of evidence to inform choice of mesh is poor.

Laparoscopic Nerve-Preserving Colposacropexy for Surgical Management of Neovaginal Prolapse

BACKGROUND

Neovaginal prolapse occurs rarely, and a standard treatment has not yet been defined.

CASE

We report 2 cases of patients with vaginal agenesis with a symptomatic neovaginal prolapse; one occurring 25 years after self-dilation and another occurring 24 years after sigmoid vaginoplasty. At 48 and 18 months after surgical treatment with laparoscopic nerve-preserving colposacropexy using 2 types of mesh and 2 kinds of sutures to anchor the mesh at the neovaginal wall, both women are asymptomatic and highly satisfied with the result, without prolapse recurrence or mesh/suture erosion.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

For the surgical management of neovaginal prolapse after sigmoid vaginoplasty and vagina creation after self-dilation, we recommend the nerve-preserving sacrocolpopexy as a safe method to achieve durable functional outcomes and good anatomic vaginal level I and II support.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and pelvic floor disorders

Pelvic floor disorders are different dysfunctions of gynaecological, urinary or anorectal organs, which can present as incontinence, outlet-obstruction and organ prolapse or as a combination of these symptoms. Pelvic floor disorders affect a substantial amount of people, predominantly women. Transabdominal procedures play a major role in the treatment of these disorders. With the development of new techniques established open procedures are now increasingly performed laparoscopically. Operation techniques consist of various rectopexies with suture, staples or meshes eventually combined with sigmoid resection. The different approaches need to be measured by their operative and functional outcome and their recurrence rates. Although these operations are performed frequently a comparison and evaluation of the different methods is difficult, as most of the used outcome measures in the available studies have not been standardised and data from randomised studies comparing these outcome measures directly are lacking. Therefore evidence based guidelines do not exist. Currently the laparoscopic approach with ventral mesh rectopexy or resection rectopexy is the two most commonly used techniques. Observational and retrospective studies show good functional results, a low rate of complications and a low recurrence rate. As high quality evidence is missing, an individualized approach is recommend for every patient considering age, individual health status and the underlying morphological and functional disorders.

"Wrap technique": a new operative procedure using a self-adhesive prosthesis for laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

The aim of the present study was to describe and assess a new method of fixation using a self-adhesive prosthesis (Adhesix(™)) in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR). The technical principles are based on a very low dissection and the adhesive properties of the prosthesis which can be applied to the rectum without stitches or staples. The prosthesis is made from polypropylene coated with a synthetic hydrogel. The binding of the prosthesis to rectum and vagina takes place in a wet environment after a few minutes and enables the shaping of the mesh on the surface of the rectum (wrap effect). Between March 2010 and March 2013, 41 patients were operated on using LVR with a self-adhesive prosthesis. The effectiveness of prosthesis fixation was evaluated in a subset of 27 patients suffering from complete rectal prolapse. With a median follow-up of 30 months, there were no major complications and no recurrence. In this initial experience, LVR with a self-adhesive prosthesis does not increase the risk of recurrence. No undesirable effects were associated with the prosthesis.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectoanal intussusception: postoperative evaluation with proctography

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy can relieve symptoms of obstructed defecation and fecal incontinence in patients with rectoanal intussusception. However, pelvic floor imaging after surgery has not been reported.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess the outcome of patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectoanal intussusception, with special reference to the postoperative findings on evacuation proctography.

DESIGN

This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

The study was conducted from 2012 to 2013 at the Department of Surgery, Kameda Medical Center, Japan.

PATIENTS

We included 26 patients with symptomatic rectoanal intussusception.

INTERVENTION

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Evacuation proctography was performed before and 6 months after the procedure. Defecatory function was evaluated using the Constipation Scoring System and Fecal Incontinence Severity Index.

RESULTS

Of 26 patients with rectoanal intussusception preoperatively, 22 had symptoms of obstructed defecation and 21 complained of fecal incontinence. Postoperatively, rectoanal intussusception was eliminated in all patients, though 8 developed recto rectal intussusception. There was an overall reduction in both grade 2 rectocele size (median preop 26 mm vs. postop 11 mm; p < 0.0001) and pelvic floor descent (median preop 26 mm vs. postop 20 mm; p < 0.0001). 6 months after surgery, a reduction of at least 50% was observed in the Constipation Scoring System score for 9 patients (41%) with obstructive defecation and in the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score for 14 incontinent patients (67%).

LIMITATIONS

This was a preliminary study with a small sample size, no control group, and short follow-up time.

CONCLUSION

Evacuation proctography showed anatomical correction in patients with rectoanal intussusception who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. However, the data also indicate that such correction does not necessarily result in meaningful symptomatic relief.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse: The role of robotic surgery

The robotic technique as a safe approach in treatment of rectal prolapse has been widely reported during the last decade. Although there is limited clinical data regarding the benefits of robotic surgery, the safety of robotic surgery in rectal prolapse treatment has been cited by several authors. Also, the robotic approach helps overcome some of the laparoscopic approach challenges with purported advantages including improved visualization, more precise dissection, easier suturing, accurate identification of anatomic structures and fewer conversions to open surgery which can facilitate the conduct of technically challenging cases. These advantages can make robotic surgery ideally suited for minimally invasive ventral rectopexy. Currently, with greater surgeon experience in robotic surgery, the length of the procedure and the recurrence rate with the robotic approach are decreasing and short term outcomes for robotic rectal prolapse seem on par with laparoscopic and open techniques in recent studies. However, the high cost of robotic procedures is still an important issue. The benefits of a robotic approach must be weighed against the higher cost. More research is needed to better understand if the increased cost is justified by an improvement in outcomes. Also, published articles comparing long term outcomes of the robotic approach with other approaches are very limited at this time and further clinical trials are indicated to affirm the role of robotic surgery in the treatment of rectal prolapse.

Ventral colporectopexy for overt rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (VR) with the use of prosthesis has been advocated for both overt rectal prolapse (ORP) and obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS). The present study reviews the short-term and functional results of laparoscopic VR.

METHOD

A search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid and Cochrane databases on all studies reporting on VR for ORP, ODS and other anatomical abnormalities of the pelvic floor from 2004 until February 2013. No language restrictions were made. All studies on VR were reviewed systematically. The main outcomes were intra-operative complications, conversion, procedure duration, short-term mortality and morbidity, length of stay, recurrence of ORP, recurrence of anatomical disorder, faecal incontinence and constipation, quality of life (QoL) score and patient satisfaction. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by three observers.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 1460 patients were eligible for analysis. The conversion rate ranged from 0 to 14.3%. No mortality was reported. The immediate postoperative morbidity rate was 8.6%. Length of stay ranged from 1 to 7 days. A significant improvement in constipation and incontinence symptoms was observed in the postoperative period for both ORP and ODS (chi-square test, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic VR is a safe and effective procedure for ORP and ODS. Longer follow-up is required, and studies comparing VR with standard rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection are not yet available.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for the treatment of obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse: a critical appraisal of the first 100 cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is gaining wider acceptance as the preferred procedure to correct internal as well as external rectal prolapse associated with obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence. Very few reports exist on the use of biologic mesh for LVR. The aim of our study was to report the complication and recurrence rate of our first 100 cases of LVR for symptomatic internal rectal prolapse and/or rectocele using a porcine dermal collagen mesh.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data on LVR for internal rectal prolapse were analysed. Surgical complications and functional results in terms of faecal incontinence (measured with the Faecal Incontinence Severity Index = FISI) and constipation (measured with the Wexner Constipation Score = WCS) at 3, 6 and 12 months were analysed. It was considered an improvement if FISI or WCS scores were reduced by at least 25 % and a cure if the FISI score decreased to <10 and the WCS decreased to <5.

RESULTS

Between April 2009 and April 2013, 100 consecutive female patients (mean age 63 years, range 24-88 years) underwent LVR. All patients had internal rectal prolapse (grade III [n = 25] and grade IV [n = 75] according to the Oxford classification) and rectocele. Mean operative time was 85 ± 40 min. Conversion rate to open technique was 1 %. There was no post-operative mortality. Overall 16 patients (16 %) experienced 18 complications, including rectal perforation (n = 1), small bowel obstruction (n = 2), urinary tract infection (n = 8), subcutaneous emphysema (n = 3), wound haematoma (n = 2), long lasting sacral pain (n = 1) and incisional hernia (1). Median post-operative length of stay was 2 days. Ninety-eight out of 100 patients completed follow-up. At the end of follow-up, the mean FISI score improved from 8.4 (±4.0 standard deviation (SD) p = 0.003) to 3.3 ± 2.3 SD (p = 0.04). Incontinence improved in 37 out of 43 patients (86 %), and 31 patients (72 %) were cured. Similarly, the mean WCS score improved from 18.4 ± 11.6 SD to 5.4 ± 4.1 SD (p = 0.04). Constipation improved in 82 out of 89 patients (92 %), and 70 patients (79 %) were cured. No worsening of continence status, constipation or sexual function was observed. Fourteen patients (14 %) experienced persistence or recurrence of prolapse.

CONCLUSIONS

LVR using biologic mesh is a safe and effective procedure for improving symptoms of obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse associated with rectocele.