Laparoscopic Suture versus Mesh Rectopexy for the Treatment of Persistent Complete Rectal Prolapse in Children: A Comparative Randomized Study

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

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

A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse

PURPOSE

Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse can be undertaken via an abdominal or a perineal approach. The present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of different abdominal and perineal procedures for rectal prolapse in terms of recurrence, complications, and improvement in fecal incontinence (FI).

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized clinical trials comparing two or more procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROB-2 tool. The main outcomes were recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse, complications, operation time, and improvement in FI.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with 728 patients were included. The follow-up ranged between 12 and 47 months. Posterior mesh rectopexy had significantly lower odds of recurrence than did the Altemeier procedure (logOR, - 12.75;  95% credible intervals, - 40.91, - 1.75), Delorme procedure (- 13.10; - 41.26, - 2.09), resection rectopexy (- 11.98; - 41.36, - 0.19), sponge rectopexy (- 13.19; - 42.87, - 0.54), and sutured rectopexy (- 13.12; - 42.58, - 1.50), but similar odds to ventral mesh rectopexy (- 12.09; - 41.7, 0.03). Differences among the procedures in complications, operation time, and improvement in FI were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior mesh rectopexy ranked best with the lowest recurrence while perineal procedures ranked worst with the highest recurrence rates.

Robotic-assisted rectosigmoid resection rectopexy with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE): technical notes, short-term results, and functional outcome

PURPOSE

Rectosigmoid resection rectopexy has been established as an effective therapy for obstructive defecation syndrome. The addition of the NOSE-technique provides an even less invasive approach avoiding minilaparotomy, but can be technically challenging. Application of a robotic platform has been proposed to facilitate the specimen extraction and fashioning of the intracorporeal anastomosis and has been proven to be effective in left-sided colectomies.

METHODS

After establishing laparoscopic rectosigmoid-resection-rectopexy with NOSE, we modified our technique by addition of the robotic platform. Whenever robotic capacity was available, elective patients scheduled for rectosigmoid resection rectopexy for obstructive defecation syndrome were operated robotically assisted. Demographic and intraoperative data were prospectively collected. Follow up was assessed using the Wexner constipation score, Wexner incontinence score, and Altomare ODS score.

RESULTS

The NOSE-RRR technique was completed in all 31 patients. The mean operative time was 166 min (range 67-230). No conversion was required. The median hospital stay was 5 days (range 3-28). Four patients had minor complications (Clavien I). Two patients were reoperated (Clavien IIIb). Functional scores improved significantly postoperatively. Mean Wexner incontinence score was 7.1 preoperatively, 6.9 after 1 month, and decreased significantly to 3.93 after 3 months (p < 0.001). Mean Altomare ODS score was 17.47 preoperatively and 6.93/5.03 after 1/3 months (p < 0.001). Wexner constipation score (12.83) also showed a significant improvement after 1/3 months (6.97/6.67; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

NOSE-RRR can be performed safely with a low rate of manageable complications. The technique provides a significant improvement for ODS-Symptoms.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy (LMR) and laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) in patients with rectal prolapse.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits. Recurrence, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), surgical site infections, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome measures.

RESULTS

We identified 5 comparative studies reporting a total of 307 patients evaluating outcomes of LMR (n=160) or LPSR (n=147) in patients with rectal prolapse. LMR was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.28, P=0.009) but longer procedure time (MD: 23.93, P<0.0001) compared to LPSR. However, there was no significant difference in CCIS (MD: -1.02, P=0.50), CCCS (MD: -1.54, P=0.47), surgical site infection (OR: 1.48, P=0.71), and length of hospital stay (MD: -1.54, P=0.47) between two groups. No mesh erosion was reported in any of the included studies at maximum follow-up point. Sub-group analyses with respect to ventral mesh rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy, randomised studies, and adult patients were consistent with the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LMR seems to be associated with lower recurrence but longer procedure time compared to LPSR. Although no mesh-related complications have been reported by the included studies, no definitive conclusions can be made considering that the included studies were inadequately powered for such outcome. Future high-quality randomised studies with adequate sample size are required.