Synthetic or biological mesh use in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy--a systematic review

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The primary objective is to identify determinants of dissatisfaction after surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse ± rectal prolapse, using laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or sacrocolpopexy (LSC) ± ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The secondary objective is the evaluation of complications and objective/subjective recurrence rates.

METHODS

The study performed was a single-surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data. LSH/LSC ± VMR were performed between July 2005 and September 2022. Primary investigated outcome was patients' satisfaction, assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score and the bother visual analog scale (VAS) obtained postoperatively (at a 1-month interval and on a 6-month/yearly basis thereafter). We looked for a correlation between the level of satisfaction (as reflected by the VAS) and potential determinants.

RESULTS

There were 355 patients with a mean age of 62 ±12 years. Nearly all the patients (94.3%) had a stage 3 or 4 prolapse according to the POP-Q classification. The mean postoperative bother VAS was 1.8, with only 12.7% of patients reporting a bother VAS score ≥ 3/10, indicating a dissatisfaction. PGI-I showed improvement in the vast majority of patients (96.4% scoring 1 to 3). Patients with anal incontinence preoperatively scored higher on the bother VAS postoperatively (r=0.175, p < 0.05). The use of a posterior arm mesh (for posterior vaginal prolapse) correlated with better satisfaction overall (r= -0.178, p = 0.001), whereas the performance of VMR was associated with a bothering sensation (r = 0.232, p < 0.001). A regression analysis confirmed the impact of posterior mesh and VMR on satisfaction levels, with odds of dissatisfaction being 2.18 higher when VMR was combined with LSH/LSC.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior mesh use improves patient satisfaction when the posterior compartment is affected. In patients with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse, combining VMR with anterior LSC/LSH appears to negatively impact patients' satisfaction. Preoperative anal incontinence was demonstrated to be a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction.

The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse

Objective

There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of rectal prolapse.

Design

A 23-question survey was distributed to the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Pelvic Floor Society. Questions pertained to surgeon and practice demographics, preoperative evaluation, procedural preferences, and educational needs.

Setting

Electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons of diverse practice settings.

Participants

249 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey, 65% of which were male. There was wide variability in age, years in practice, and practice setting.

Main outcome measures

Responses to questions regarding preoperative workup preferences and clinical scenarios.

Results

In preoperative evaluation, 19% would perform anorectal physiology testing and 70% would evaluate for concomitant pelvic organ prolapse. In a healthy patient, 90% would perform a minimally invasive abdominal approach, including ventral rectopexy (56%), suture rectopexy (31%), mesh rectopexy (6%) and resection rectopexy (5%). In terms of ventral rectopexy, surgeons in the Americas preferred a synthetic mesh (61.9% vs 38.1%, p=0.59) whereas surgeons from Australasia preferred biologic grafts (75% vs 25%, p<0.01). In an older patient with comorbidities 81% would perform a perineal approach. Procedure preference (Delormes vs Altmeier) varied according to location (Australasia, 85.9% vs 14.1%; Europe, 75.3% vs 24.7%; Americas, 14.1% vs 85.9%). Most participants were interested in education regarding surgical approaches, however there is wide variability in preferred methods.

Conclusion

There is significant variability in the preoperative evaluation and surgery performed for rectal prolapse. Given the lack of consensus, it is not surprising that most surgeons desire further education on the topic.

Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series

Introduction: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is the standard procedure for the treatment of posterior pelvic organ prolapse. Despite significant functional improvement and anatomical corrections, severe complications related to mesh augmentation can occur in a few proportions of patients. In order to decrease the number of rare but severe complications, we developed a variant of the conventional VMR without any rectal fixation and using a robotic approach with biological mesh. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with synthetic mesh (LVMRS) to those of robotic ventral rectopexy with biological mesh (RVMRB). Methods: Between 2004 and 2021, patients operated on for VMR in our unit were identified and separated into two groups: LVMRS and RVMRB. The surgical technique for both groups consisted of VMR without any rectal fixation, with mesh distally secured on the levator ani muscles. Results: 269 patients with a mean age of 62 years were operated for posterior pelvic floor disorder: rectocele (61.7%) and external rectal prolapse (34.6%). 222 (82.5%) patients received LVMRS (2004-2015), whereas 47 were operated with RVMRB (2015-2021). Both groups slightly differed for combined anterior fixation proportion (LVMRS 39% vs. RVMRB 6.4%, p < 0.001). Despite these differences, the length of stay was shorter in the RVMRB group (2 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were comparable in the two groups (1.8 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.089) and mainly consisted of minor complications. Functional outcomes were favorable and similar in both groups, with an improvement in bulging, obstructed defecation symptoms, and fecal incontinence (NS in subgroup analysis). In the long term, there were no mesh erosions reported. The overall recurrence rate was 11.9%, and was comparable in the two groups (13% LVMRS vs. 8.5, p = 0.43). Conclusions: VMR without rectal fixation is a safe and effective approach in posterior organ prolapse management. RVMRB provides comparable results in terms of recurrence and functional results, with avoidance of unabsorbable material implantation.

A quantitative study to explore functional outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Rectal prolapse is a life-altering problem and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is emerging as the surgical intervention of choice. However, the literature is ambiguous on its effect on bowel function and sparse as regards bladder and sexual function. This study assesses short-term functional outcomes following LVMR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This quantitative retrospective study with a pretest-post-test design included 130 adults who had undergone LVMR from October 2010 to December 2018 in a tertiary centre. Analysis with paired-samples t-test and Wilcoxon matched pairs test was done using SPSS (v26).

RESULTS

The median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 48-74 years); 123 (94.6%) were female. The median length of stay was two days (interquartile range, 1-2 days). A total of 104 (80%) sets of medical notes were reviewed. One patient had recurrence of rectal prolapse. Synthetic mesh was used in 24 patients (23.1%) and biological mesh in 80 (76.9%). One patient had extrusion of a synthetic mesh and required surgery; 31(23.8%) completed the Electronic Patient Assessment Questionnaire for Pelvic Floor. Overall, the improvement in bladder function was not statistically significant (p = 0.670). A statistically significant improvement was seen for all bowel symptoms (p = 0.002) excluding constipation (p = 0.295). Irritable bowel symptoms associated with rectal prolapse improved significantly following LVMR (p = 0.001). Vaginal prolapse (p < 0.0005), dyspareunia (p = 0.001) and bowel symptoms affecting sexual intercourse (p = 0.01) improved, but improvement in overall sexual function was not statistically significant (p = 0.081).

CONCLUSIONS

LVMR improves bowel function overall, although it can worsen constipation. It has the potential to improve sexual function but makes negligible difference to bladder function.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.

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.

Polyvinylidene Fluoride Mesh Use in Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy in Patients with Obstructive Defecation Syndrome for the First Time

BACKGROUND

Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) affects quality of life of patients to a great extent by disturbing defecation. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has gained much attention in the recent years. Common synthetic used meshes have a risk of erosion for adjacent pelvic organs leading to some complications. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of LVMR using polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh in patients with ODS for the first time.Methods and Materials: In this experimental study, patients with a history of ODS and associated signs and symptoms such as descending perineum, rectocele, enterocele, intussusception, rectal prolapse or a combined disorder were recruited. The patients underwent LVMR using a PVDF mesh. They were followed using the Constipation Scoring System (CSS) score. Participants were followed up for 12 months after surgery. Complications and CSS for each patient and its changes were the main outcomes of this study.

RESULTS

Of 156 patients, 155 had a 12-month complete follow-up. Thirty-nine (25.2%) were male and 116 (74.8%) female. Mean ± SD age of participants was 45.61 ± 14.02 years. The overall complication rate was 3.87%. No major mesh-related complications were recorded. Four cases (2.58%) of trocar site hernia were reported. Also, two cases (1.29%) of postoperative bleeding occurred. CSS before the operation and 1, 3, and 12 months after it were 11.04 ± 5.93, 7.98 ± 4.85, 5.46 ± 3.70 and 4.09 ± 2.98, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Synthetic meshes might cause severe erosion in pelvic organs. However, at least in short-term follow-up, PVDF mesh seems to be safe and effective in LVMR, with the advantage of being cheaper.

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.

Impact of Suture Type on Erosion Rate After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing concern and scrutiny in the use of mesh for certain pelvic organ prolapse procedures. However, mesh erosion was often associated with sites of suture fixation of the mesh to the rectum or vagina. Thus, in response to this finding, we replaced our suture material with absorbable monofilament suture.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of mesh-related complications after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, according to the type of suture used in fixation of mesh.

DESIGN

This was retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This study was performed at a high-volume, tertiary care center. It was conducted using a prospective database including patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy over a 7-year period.

PATIENTS

A total of 495 cases were included; 296 (60%) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexies were performed using a nonabsorbable suture compared with 199 (40%) with an absorbable suture in a case-matched analysis. In addition, 151 cases of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy with nonabsorbable were matched based on age, sex, and time of follow-up, with an equal number of patients using absorbable monofilament suture.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Primary outcome was symptomatic mesh erosion after rectopexy. Secondary outcomes included other mesh-related complications and/or reoperations.

RESULTS

The erosion rate was 2% (6/495) in the nonabsorbable suture group, including 4 erosions into the rectum and 2 into the vagina. There was no erosion in the group with absorbable suture. This difference was maintained after matching: after a median follow-up of 6 (12) months, there was no erosion in the absorbable suture group versus 3.3% erosion (n = 5) in the nonabsorbable suture group (p = 0.03).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh-related complications are reduced using absorbable sutures compared with nonabsorbable sutures when performing laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic mesh without an increase in rectopexy failures. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B49. IMPACTO DEL TIPO DE SUTURA EN LA TASA DE EROSIóN DESPUéS DE LA RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL LAPAROSCóPICA CON MALLA: UN ESTUDIO DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS: Ha habido una creciente preocupación y escrutinio en el uso de la malla para ciertos procedimientos de prolapso de órganos pélvicos. Sin embargo, la erosión de la malla a menudo se asoció con sitios de fijación de sutura de la malla al recto o la vagina. Por lo tanto, en respuesta a este hallazgo, reemplazamos nuestro material de sutura con sutura de monofilamento absorbible.Comparar las tasas de complicaciones relacionadas con la malla después de la rectopexia laparoscópica de malla ventral, de acuerdo al tipo de sutura utilizada en la fijación de la malla.Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.Este estudio se realizó en un centro de atención de tercer nivel de alto volumen. Se realizó utilizando una base de datos prospectiva que incluía pacientes que se sometieron a una rectopexia de malla ventral laparoscópica durante un período de 7 años.Se incluyeron un total de 495 casos; 296 (60%) rectopexias de malla ventral laparoscópica utilizando una sutura no reabsorbible en comparación con 199 (40%) con una sutura absorbible en un análisis de casos emparejados. Además, 151 casos de rectopexia ventral laparoscópica con malla no absorbible se emparejaron según la edad, el sexo y el tiempo de seguimiento con un número igual de pacientes que usaban sutura de monofilamento absorbible.La medida de resultado primaria fue la erosión sintomática de la malla después de la rectopexia. La medida de resultado secundarias incluyeron otras complicaciones y/o reoperaciones relacionadas con la malla.La tasa de erosión fue del 2% (6/495) en el grupo de sutura no absorbible; 4 erosiones en el recto y 2 en la vagina. No hubo erosión en el grupo con sutura absorbible. Esta diferencia se mantuvo después del emparejamiento: después de una mediana de seguimiento de 6 (12) meses, no hubo erosión en el grupo de sutura absorbible versus 3.3% de erosión (n = 5) en el grupo de sutura no absorbible (p = 0.03).Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.Las complicaciones relacionadas con la malla se reducen utilizando suturas absorbibles en comparación con las suturas no absorbibles cuando se realiza la rectopexia de malla ventral laparoscópica con malla sintética, sin un aumento en los fracasos de rectopexia. Vea el Resumen del Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B49.

Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh for recurrent disorders of the posterior pelvic organ compartment

PURPOSE

Recurrent prolapse of the posterior pelvic organ compartment presents a management challenge, with the best surgical procedure remaining unclear. We present functional outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) with biological mesh in patients with recurrence.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 30 patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse who underwent VMR with biological mesh from August 2012 to January 2018. Data included patient demographics and intra- and postoperative findings; functional outcome as assessed by Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Score Longo (ODS), and Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS); and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

CCCS, CCIS, and ODS were significantly improved at 6-12 months postoperatively and at last follow-up. Patient satisfaction (visual analog scale [VAS] 6.7 [0 to 10]), subjective symptoms (+ 3.4 [scale - 5 to + 5]), and quality of life improvement (+ 3.0 [scale from - 5 to + 5]) were high at last follow-up. The rates of morbidity and major complications were 13% and 3%, respectively. There were no mesh-related complications or deaths. Difference in type of previous surgery (abdominal or transanal/perineal) had no significant effect on results.

CONCLUSIONS

VMR with biological mesh is a safe and effective option for patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse. It reduces functional symptoms, has a low complication rate, and promotes patient satisfaction.

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 mesh erosion rate following abdominal robotic reconstructive pelvic floor surgery: a prospective study and overview of the literature

Introduction and hypothesis

The use of synthetic mesh in transvaginal pelvic floor surgery has been subject to debate internationally. Although mesh erosion appears to be less associated with an abdominal approach, the long-term outcome has not been studied intensively. This study was set up to determine the long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Methods

A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. All consecutive female patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and sacrocolporectopexy in 2011 and 2012 were included. Primary outcome was mesh erosion. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation (6 weeks, 1 year, 5 years) with a clinical examination and questionnaire regarding pelvic floor symptoms was performed. Mesh-related complications were assessed using a transparent vaginal speculum, proctoscopy, and digital vaginal and rectal examination. Kaplan–Meier estimates were calculated for mesh erosion. A review of the literature on mesh exposure after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy was performed (≥12 months’ follow-up).

Results

Ninety-six of the 130 patients included (73.8%) were clinically examined. Median follow-up time was 48.1 months (range 36.0–62.1). Three mesh erosions were diagnosed (3.1%; Kaplan–Meier 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0–11.0): one bladder erosion for which mesh resection and an omental patch interposition were performed, and two asymptomatic vaginal erosions (at 42.7 and 42.3 months) treated with estrogen cream in one. Additionally, 22 patients responded solely by questionnaire and/or telephone; none reported mesh-related complaints. The literature, mostly based on retrospective studies, described a median mesh erosion rate of 1.9% (range 0–13.3%).

Conclusions

The long-term rate of mesh erosion following an abdominally placed synthetic graft is low.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00192-019-03990-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Short term outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse: case series

Objectives

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is a technique gaining more recognition for the management of pelvic floor disorders, such as external rectal prolapse (ERP), high grade internal rectal prolapse (IRP) and rectocele. LVMR also allows correction of coexisted pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and functional outcome of LVMR for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse.

Material and Methods

All patients who underwent LVMR from February 2014 to October 2017 were included into the study. The patients were evaluated preoperatively and three months postoperatively. Surgical complications and functional results in terms of fecal incontinence (measured with the Wexner Incontinence Score= WIS) and constipation (measured with the Wexner Constipation Score= WCS) were analyzed.

Results

Thirty (4 males) patients underwent LVMR. Seventeen (56.6%) patients had complex pelvic organ prolapse according to MRI findings. Median operative time and postoperative stay were 110 minutes and 4 days, respectively. No mesh-related complication and recurrence were observed. Before surgery, 21 (70%) patients had complained about symptoms of obstructed defecation. WCS decreased significantly from median 19 to 6 (p <0.001). Preoperative median WIS of 9 patients was 14 and went down to 6 postoperatively (p= 0.008). WCS significantly improved after LVMR in patients with symptomatic rectocele combined with enterocele or sigmoidocele (p= 0.005), and significant improvement was also observed in patients with symptomatic rectocele combined with gynecologic organ prolapse, preoperative median WCS was 18 and the postoperative value fell to 8 (p= 0.005).

Conclusion

LVMR is an effective surgical option for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse with short-term follow-up.

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.

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

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

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.

Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh: short-term functional results

PURPOSE

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is an established, minimally invasive, nerve-sparing procedure for the treatment of various symptomatic morphological changes in the posterior pelvic compartment. We present the short-term functional outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and robotic VMR with biological mesh.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 123 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) or robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) from August 2012 to January 2017. Included in these data were patient demographics, intra- and postoperative findings, Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Score Longo (ODS), Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), and patient satisfaction as measured by visual analog scale (0-10).

RESULTS

Improvements in CCCS, CCIS, and ODS were statistically significant at 6 and 12 months (p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was excellent at 6 and 12 months (8.2/10 and 8.3/10, respectively). The overall complication rate was 14%, with a major complication rate of 2%. No mesh-related complications were observed. The need for surgical re-intervention because of relapse, symptom persistence or recurrence, or new symptoms was 3%. Outcome appears to be similar between LVMR and RVMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LVMR and RVMR with biological mesh are safe and effective in reducing symptoms, as measured by CCCS, CCIS, and ODS, and patient satisfaction is high.

Stepped-wedge randomised trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is an established treatment for external full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, its clinical efficacy in patients with internal prolapse is uncertain due to the lack of high-quality evidence.

Methods

An individual level, stepped-wedge randomised trial has been designed to allow observer-blinded data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR with those who have undergone surgery. Adults with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse, unresponsive to prior conservative management, will be eligible to participate. They will be randomised to three arms with different delays before surgery (0, 12 and 24 weeks). Efficacy outcome data will be collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks). The primary objective is to determine clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls with reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) at 24 weeks serving as the primary outcome. Secondary objectives are to determine: (1) the clinical effectiveness of LVMR to 48 weeks to a maximum of 72 weeks; (2) pre-operative determinants of outcome; (3) relevant health economics for LVMR; (4) qualitative evaluation of patient and health professional experience of LVMR and (5) 30-day morbidity and mortality rates.

Discussion

An individual-level, stepped-wedge, randomised trial serves the purpose of providing an untreated comparison for the active treatment group, while at the same time allowing the waiting-listed participants an opportunity to obtain the intervention at a later date. In keeping with the basic ethical tenets of this design, the average waiting time for LVMR (12 weeks) will be shorter than that for routine services (24 weeks).

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11747152. Registered on 30 September 2015. The trial was prospectively registered (first patient enrolled on 21 March 2016).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2456-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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 ventral mesh rectopexy for obstructive defecation syndrome: still the way to go?

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) has become a popular surgical technique for treating women with full-thickness rectal prolapse with a low recurrence rate, as demonstrated by several studies. In addition, it is increasingly applied to female patients with obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) caused by intussusception ± rectocele. Functional improvement can be achieved in a high number of patients with ODS, but expectations need to be discussed carefully, as a few patients may not benefit at all. In particular, long-term data on functional outcome and complications following laparoscopic VMR for ODS are still lacking in the literature. Notably, laparoscopic VMR appears to be better than alternative operations for prolapse, intussusception, and rectocele in terms of efficacy, recurrence rates, and adverse effects, but there is a lack of evidence directly comparing techniques through randomized controlled trials; thus, its exact role stills needs to be defined in the future.

Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rectal prolapse is often repaired laparoscopically, frequently with the use of reinforcement material. Both synthetic and biologically derived materials reduce recurrence rate compared to primary suture repair. Synthetic mesh introduces potential complications such as mesh erosion, fibrosis, and infection. Urinary bladder matrix (UBM) represents a biologically derived material for reinforcement of rectal prolapse repair with the potential to improve durability without risks of synthetic materials. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness, durability, and functional result of laparoscopic rectopexy using urinary bladder matrix xenograft reinforcement at three years follow up.

METHODS

The 20 cases presented describe rectal prolapse repair by means of laparoscopic rectopexy with presacral UBM reinforcement. Patients were followed up for an average of 3 years and assessed with interviews, physical examination, manometry, and the fecal incontinence severity index (FISI).

RESULTS

Each repair was completed laparoscopically. UBM exhibited favorable handling characteristics when sutured to the sacrum and the lateral rectal walls. One patient underwent laparoscopic drainage of a postoperative abscess; no other complications occurred. In 3 years of follow-up, there have been no full-thickness recurrences, erosions, reoperations, or long-term complications. Two patients exhibited a small degree of mucosal prolapse on follow-up physical examination that did not require surgery. Three-year FISI scores averaged 8 (range, 0-33 of a possible 61), indicating low fecal incontinence symptomatology. Follow-up anorectal manometry was performed in 9 patients, showing mixed results.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons may safely use laparoscopic rectopexy with UBM reinforcement for repair of rectal prolapses. In this series, repairs with UBM grafts have been durable at 3-year follow-up and may be an alternative to synthetic mesh reinforcement of rectal prolapse repairs. Future studies may compare the advantages and cost-effectiveness of reinforcement materials for rectal prolapse repair.

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

Purpose

This review reports the incidence of mesh-related erosion after ventral mesh rectopexy to determine whether any difference exists in the erosion rate between synthetic and biological mesh.

Methods

A systematic search of the MEDLINE and the Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2004 and 2015. The search strategy capture terms were laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy, robotic ventral rectopexy, and robotic anterior rectopexy.

Results

Eight studies (3,956 patients) were included in this review. Of those patients, 3,517 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) using synthetic mesh and 439 using biological mesh. Sixty-six erosions were observed with synthetic mesh (26 rectal, 32 vaginal, 8 recto-vaginal fistulae) and one (perineal erosion) with biological mesh. The synthetic and the biological mesh-related erosion rates were 1.87% and 0.22%, respectively. The time between rectopexy and diagnosis of mesh erosion ranged from 1.7 to 124 months. No mesh-related mortalities were reported.

Conclusion

The incidence of mesh-related erosion after LVR is low and is more common after the placement of synthetic mesh. The use of biological mesh for LVR seems to be a safer option; however, large, multicenter, randomized, control trials with long follow-ups are required if a definitive answer is to be obtained.

Risk Factors for Recurrence After Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy effectively treats posterior compartment prolapse. However, recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate factors contributing to recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy between June 2008 and June 2014. Patients presenting with full-thickness rectal prolapse were compared against the rest. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine predictors for recurrence. Operative findings of redo cases were evaluated.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted under the supervision of a single pelvic floor surgeon.

PATIENTS

A total of 231 patients with a median follow-up of 47 months were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinicopathological risk factors and technical failures contributing to recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall recurrence rate was 11.7% (n = 27). Twenty-five recurrences occurred in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse, of which 16 were full-thickness recurrences (14.2% (16/113)). Multivariate analyses showed predictors for recurrence to be prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (HR = 5.57 (95% CI, 1.13 - 27.42); p = 0.04) and the use of synthetic mesh as compared with biologic grafts (HR = 4.24 (95% CI, 1.27-14.20); p = 0.02). Age >70 years and poorer preoperative continence were also associated with recurrence on univariate analysis. Technical failures contributing to recurrence included mesh detachment from the sacral promontory and inadequate midrectal mesh fixation.

LIMITATIONS

Modifications to the operative technique were made throughout the study period. A postoperative defecating proctogram was not routinely performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is multifactorial, and risk factors are both clinical and technical. The use of biologic grafts was associated with lower recurrence as compared with synthetic mesh. Patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse who are elderly, have poorer baseline continence, and have prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency are at increased risk of recurrence.

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.

[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.

Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse

External and internal rectal prolapse with their affiliated rectocele and enterocele, are associated with debilitating symptoms such as obstructed defecation, pelvic pain and faecal incontinence. Since perineal procedures are associated with a higher recurrence rate, an abdominal approach is commonly preferred. Despite the description of greater than three hundred different procedures, thus far no clear superiority of one surgical technique has been demonstrated. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a relatively new and promising technique to correct rectal prolapse. In contrast to the abdominal procedures of past decades, VMR avoids posterolateral rectal mobilisation and thereby minimizes the risk of postoperative constipation. Because of a perceived acceptable recurrence rate, good functional results and low mesh-related morbidity in the short to medium term, VMR has been popularized in the past decade. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted VMR is now being progressively performed internationally and several articles and guidelines propose the procedure as the treatment of choice for rectal prolapse. In this article, an outline of the current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse is presented.

Consistently inconsistent, the posterior vaginal wall

Posterior vaginal wall prolapse is one of the most common prolapses encountered by gynecological surgeons. What appears to be a straightforward condition to diagnose and treat surgically for physicians has proven to be frustratingly unpredictable with regard to symptom relief for patients. Functional disorders such as dyssynergic defecation and constipation are often attributed to posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Little scientific evidence supports this assumption, emphasizing that structure and function are not synonymous when treating posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Rectoceles, enteroceles, sigmoidoceles, peritoneoceles, rectal and intraanal intussusception, rectal prolapse, and descending perineal syndrome are all conditions that have an impact on the posterior vaginal wall. All too often these different anatomic conditions are treated with the same surgical approach, addressing a posterior vaginal wall bulge with a traditional posterior colporrhaphy. Studies that examine the correlation between stage of posterior wall prolapse and patient symptoms have failed to reliably do so. Surgical outcomes measured by prolapse staging appear successful, yet patient expectations are often not met. As increasing attention is being placed on patient satisfaction outcomes concerning surgical treatments, this fact will need to be addressed. Surgeons will have to clearly communicate what can and what cannot be expected with surgical repair of posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

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 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.

Diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence: Consensus statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists

Faecal incontinence is a common and disturbing condition, which leads to impaired quality of life and huge social and economic costs. Although recent studies have identified novel diagnostic modalities and therapeutic options, the best diagnostic and therapeutic approach is not yet completely known and shared among experts in this field. The Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists selected a pool of experts to constitute a joint committee on the basis of their experience in treating pelvic floor disorders. The aim was to develop a position paper on the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of faecal incontinence, to provide practical recommendations for a cost-effective diagnostic work-up and a tailored treatment strategy. The recommendations were defined and graded on the basis of levels of evidence in accordance with the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and were based on currently published scientific evidence. Each statement was drafted through constant communication and evaluation conducted both online and during face-to-face working meetings. A brief recommendation at the end of each paragraph allows clinicians to find concise responses to each diagnostic and therapeutic issue.