Short term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse

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-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.

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.

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.

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.