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

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.