Outcome of a Modified Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse with the Use of a Single or Double Suture: A Case Series of 15 Patients

Laparoscopic Sutureless Rectopexy Using a Fixation Device for Complete Rectal Prolapse

BACKGROUND

Complete rectal prolapse (CRP) commonly affects the daily life of older people and has no established operative treatment approach. We describe our simple method of laparoscopic, sutureless rectopexy, involving rectal mobilization (along with its peritoneum bilaterally) and fixation to the sacral promontory using a fixation device. We also present an analysis of short-term outcomes in patients treated using this procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 62 patients with CRP, who underwent a laparoscopic rectopexy via tack fixation, between 2004 and 2017. The peritoneum was widely attached near the site of peritoneal reflection, as in rectal cancer surgery. The hypogastric nerve was carefully detached from the front of the sacrum. Keeping the nerve intact, we lifted and mobilized the dissected rectum cranially towards the promontory, and the rectal peritoneum was affixed to the sacrum by applying 2 to 3 fixed tacks bilaterally, using a fixation device.

RESULTS

The median age of the study group was 80 (10 to 91) years. All procedures were successful without serious intraoperative complications; only 1 patient required conversion to open surgery. Median values for operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative period of hospitalization were 177 (125 to 441) minutes, 5 (0 to 275) mL, and 7 (3 to 17) days, respectively. Only 6 (9.7%) patients experienced recurrence during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic tacking rectopexy performed using a fixation device for repairing CRP is a simple, safe, and sutureless procedure with no severe complications or mortality.

Suture rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for complete full-thickness rectal prolapse and intussusception: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR).

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on the recurrence rates of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) or intussusception (IS) after SR and VMR. Results were pooled and procedures compared; a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients with CRP and IS who underwent VMR using biological versus synthetic meshes. A meta-analysis of studies comparing SR and VMR was undertaken. The Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies score, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to assess the quality of studies.

Results

Twenty-two studies with 976 patients were included in the SR group and 31 studies with 1605 patients in the VMR group; among these studies, five were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall, in patients with CRP, the recurrence rate was 8.6 per cent after SR and 3.7 per cent after VMR (P < 0.001). However, in patients with IS treated using VMR, the recurrence rate was 9.7 per cent. Recurrence rates after VMR did not differ with use of biological or synthetic mesh in patients treated for CRP (4.1 versus 3.6 per cent; P = 0.789) and or IS (11.4 versus 11.0 per cent; P = 0.902). Results from the meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, and the difference in recurrence rates between SR and VMR groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.76).

Conclusion

Although the systematic review showed a higher recurrence rate after SR than VMR for treatment of CRP, this result was not confirmed by meta-analysis. Therefore, robust RCTs comparing SR and biological VMR are required.

Surgical options for full-thickness rectal prolapse: current status and institutional choice

Full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) is generally believed to result from a sliding hernia through a pelvic fascial defect, or from rectal intussusception. The currently accepted cause is a pelvic floor disorder. Surgery is the only definitive treatment, although the ideal therapeutic option for FTRP has not been determined. Auffret reported the first FTRP surgery using a perineal approach in 1882, and rectopexy using conventional laparotomy was first described by Sudeck in 1922. Laparoscopy was first used by Bermann in 1992, and laparoscopic surgery is now used worldwide; robotic surgery was first described by Munz in 2004. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rates with FTRP surgery are an active research area and in this article we review previously documented surgeries and discuss the best approach for FTRP. We also introduce our institution's laparoscopic surgical technique for FTRP (laparoscopic rectopexy with posterior wrap and peritoneal closure). Therapeutic decisions must be individualized to each patient, while the surgeon's experience must also be considered.