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

Easy modified wells method for rectal prolapse with using bilayer mesh

BACKGROUND

In recent years, many laparoscopic procedures have been reported for the treatment of rectal prolapse, and the Wells method is safe and has relatively good results for rectal prolapse, which is common in the elderly. In this report, we have developed a simpler method to perform the Wells method.

METHODS

In our procedures, easy modified Wells method is performed laparoscopically, but the use of a bilayer mesh makes it easier to perform without the need to suture the retroperitoneum. We performed the method for six cases. All patients are female and average age is 86 ± 4.6. Max length of rectal prolapse is 3 cm-7 cm.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 191 ± 26 min. No recurrent rectal prolapse was encountered during follow-up period. The average defecation frequency per week before surgery was 5.3 ± 1.9 and after surgery was 3.7 ± 2.1.

CONCLUSION

Easy modified Wells method can be performed with safety and without difficulty. This method has shown acceptable results in recurrence rates and defecation frequency after surgery.

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.

Transanal rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

PURPOSE

The surgical management of patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) continues to remain a challenge in the laparoscopic era. This study retrospectively assesses a cohort of patients undergoing a transanal suture sacro rectopexy supported by sclerosant injection into the presacral space under ultrasound guidance.

METHODS

Patients with FTRP underwent a sutured transrectal presacral fixation of 2/3 of the circumference of the rectum from the third sacral vertebra to the sacrococcygeal junction through a side-viewing operating proctoscope. The procedure was supplemented by ultrasound-guided injection into the retrorectal space of a 2 mL solution of sodium tetradecyl sulfate/polidocanol mixed with air. Patients were functionally assessed before and 6 months after surgery with the Agachan constipation score and the Pescatori incontinence score.

RESULTS

There were 36 adult patients (26 males; the range of age, 23-92 years). The mean operative time was 27 minutes (range, 23-50 minutes) with no recorded perioperative morbidity. The median follow-up was 66 months (range, 48-84 months) with 1 (2.8%) recurrence presenting 18 months after surgery. There were 19 patients (52.8%) who presented with incontinence before surgery with 17 out of 19 (89.5%) reporting improvement in their Pescatori score (P<0.001). No patient had worsening incontinence and there were no de novo incontinence cases. Constipation scores improved in 23 out of 36 patients (63.9%) with a mean score reduction difference of 7.91 (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Transanal sutured sacral rectopexy with supplemental presacral sclerosant injection is safe and effective in the management of FTRP with sustained improvement in bowel function.

Mesh safety in pelvic surgery: Our experience and outcome of biological mesh used in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) continues to be a popular treatment option for rectal prolapse, obstructive defecation/faecal incontinence and rectoceles. In recent years there have been concerns regarding the safety of mesh placements in the pelvis.

AIM

To assess the safety of the mesh and the outcome of the procedure.

METHODS

Eighty-six patients underwent LVMR with Permacol (Biological) mesh from 2012 to 2018 at University Hospital Wishaw. Forty were treated for obstructive defecation secondary to prolapse, rectocele or internal rectal intussusception, 38 for mixed symptoms obstructive defecation and incontinence, 5 for pain and bleeding secondary to full thickness prolapse and 3 with symptoms of incontinence. Questionnaires for the calculation of Wexner scores for constipation and incontinence were completed by the patients who were followed up in the clinic 12 wk after surgery and again in 6-12 mo. The average review of their notes was 18.3 ± 4.2 mo.

RESULTS

The median Wexner scores for constipation pre-operatively and post-operatively were 14.5 [Interquartile range (IQR): 10.5-18.5] and 3 (IQR: 1-6), respectively, while the median Wexner score for faecal incontinence was 11 (IQR: 7-15) and 2 (IQR: 0-5), respectively (P < 0.01). There were 4 (4.6%) recurrences, 2 cases that presented with erosion of a suture through the rectum and one with diskitis. No mesh complications or mortalities were recorded.

CONCLUSION

LVMR using a Permacol mesh is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of obstructive defecation/faecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, rectoceles and internal rectal prolapse/intussusception.

Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Several different procedures have been described for surgical treatment of rectal prolapse and consensus on the optimal approach has not been reached. The Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial was performed with the aim to compare the outcomes after the most common surgical approaches to rectal prolapse.

METHOD

A multicentre randomized trial was conducted from 2000 to 2009. Patients were randomized between a perineal or an abdominal approach for correction of rectal prolapse (randomization A) if eligible for any procedures. Patients considered unsuitable for random allocation were only included in randomizations B or C. Patients in randomization B (perineal group) were randomized to Delorme's or Altemeier's procedures and those in randomization C (abdominal group) to suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy. Primary outcomes were bowel function and quality of life, measured using Wexner incontinence score and RAND-36, and secondary outcomes were complications and recurrence at 3 years.

RESULTS

During the study period, 134 patients were randomized: 18 in randomization A group, 80 in randomization B group and 54 in randomization C group; of these, 122 patients underwent surgery. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. Improvements in Wexner and RAND-36 scores were seen but with no significant difference between the groups. Health change scores were significantly improved from baseline up to 1 year after surgery (P < 0.001). At 3 years, recurrence rates were two of seven patients for abdominal versus five of eight patients for perineal approach (P = 0.315), 18 of 31 patients (58 per cent) for Delorme's versus 15 of 30 patients (50 per cent) for Altemeier's (P = 0.611) and four of 19 patients (21 per cent) for suture rectopexy versus two of 21 patients (10 per cent) for resection rectopexy (P = 0.398). There were no significant differences regarding postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

For all procedures, significant improvements from baseline in health change scores were noted after surgery. Recurrence rates were higher than previously reported. Registration number: NCT04893642 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Laparoscopic Versus Open Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Most of the patients with rectal prolapse complain of fecal incontinence followed by constipation. Surgery is the only definitive treatment option for rectal prolapse. There are two approaches: either transanal/perineal or transabdominal. The abdominal procedures can be done in the open laparotomy method or laparoscopically. Suture rectopexy is a very old and popular method of treating rectal prolapse. Nowadays, rectopexy by laparoscopic approach is considered the gold standard treatment for rectal prolapse. The study has been conducted to compare both the procedures and their outcomes in terms of conditions associated with rectal prolapse.

Methods

All consecutive patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse who had attended the surgery outpatient department were included in the study. The patients had undergone either open suture rectopexy or laparoscopic rectopexy after randomization. Assessment of postoperative pain, mean days of hospital stay, constipation, and incontinence score along with operative time, recurrence within six months of follow-up, and time to resume bowel activity were done. The patients were followed up for 18 months at regular intervals.

Results

A total of 58 patients were included in the study: 27 in the open group and 31 in the laparoscopic group. The operative time was 102 minutes versus 129 minutes (p=0.0001) in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The laparoscopic group had an earlier resumption of bowel activity (3.1 days vs. 1.4 days [p=0.0001]); fewer days of hospital stay (6.8 days vs. 2.5 days [p=0.0001]), less postoperative pain (mean visual analogue scale score for pain on postoperative day one 4.0 versus 3.1 [p=0.0035] and on postoperative day two 3.8 versus 2.2 [p=0.0001]). There was no significant difference in postoperative constipation score and incontinence score between the two groups.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic rectopexy results in lesser postoperative pain, lesser hospital stay, and better patient satisfaction than open rectopexy.

What is the recommended procedure for recurrent rectal prolapse? A retrospective cohort study in a single Japanese institution

Purpose

The choice of surgical procedure for rectal prolapse (RP) is challenging because of the high recurrence and morbidity rates. We aimed to clarify whether laparoscopic suture rectopexy (lap-rectopexy) is suitable for Japanese patients with recurrent RP.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 77 recurrent RP patients who had been treated on average 1.5 times between June 2008 and April 2016. Forty-one patients underwent lap-rectopexy and 36 underwent perineal procedures. We compared surgical outcomes and recurrence rate following surgery between the two groups. The multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors of recurrent RP.

Results

In patients’ characteristics, significant differences were observed in the type of anesthesia (p < 0.01) and length of recurrent RP (p = 0.030). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the lap-rectopexy group (p < 0.001). Blood loss, length of hospitalization, and postoperative complications were similar. The recurrence rate was significantly lower in the lap-rectopexy group (17.1% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.032). Multivariate analysis showed that only the laparoscopic approach was significantly associated with a low recurrence following surgery (odds ratio 0.273, 95% CI − 2.568 to − 0.032).

Conclusion

Lap-rectopexy is recommended for recurrent RP because its low recurrence rate and safety profile are similar to those of perineal procedures.

Abdominal ventral rectopexy with colectomy for obstructed defecation syndrome: An alternative option for selected patients

BACKGROUND

Abdominal ventral rectopexy (AVR) with colectomy is controversial in the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Literature data on this technique for ODS are very limited.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of AVR with colectomy for selected patients with ODS.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent AVR with colectomy for ODS were identified prospectively from 2016 to 2017 in our department. Patient demographics, perioperative surgical results, and postoperative follow-up outcomes were collected and analyzed. Long-term follow-up was evaluated with standardized questionnaires. The severity of symptoms was assessed by the objective Wexner Constipation Score (WCS) and ODS Score. The quality of life was assessed by the Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score. Functional outcome was compared pre- and post-operatively for each patient. The primary outcomes were determined by the improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures were operating time, postoperative length of stay, morbidity and mortality, improvement of pelvic floor structure, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Four patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery, and two patients underwent a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. The mean operating time for the robotic approach was 243 min (range 160–300 min), and the mean operating time for the laparoscopic approach was 230 min (range 220-240 min). The mean postoperative length of stay was 8.2 d (range 6-12 d). There was no conversion to open procedure and no postoperative mortality. No urinary retention, wound infection, prolonged ileus, pelvic infection and anastomosis leakage occurred. Six patients were followed up for 36 mo. The WCS, ODS, and Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score improved significantly postoperatively (P < 0.05). The WCS and ODS scores showed the best remission and stabilization at 6 to 12 mo after surgery. There was no recurrence or novel constipation after surgery. None of the patients used laxative medication.

CONCLUSION

Robotic and laparoscopic-assisted ventral rectopexy with colectomy is a safe and effective procedure for selected patients with ODS. However, comprehensive preoperative evaluation and careful patient selection are essential.

Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse: A 10-Year Experience at a Single Institution

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Anal encirclement using polypropylene mesh for high grade complete full-thickness rectal prolapse: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Rectal prolapse is defined as protrusion of the rectal wall outside the anus caused by pelvic floor abnormalities. Operative repair is the only definitive treatment. Until now, there is no ideal surgical technique that can be used for all patients.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

Here we report two cases of full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients with high-risk comorbidities. A seventy and seventy-eight-year-old female patients presented with complaints of anal lumps. Their past medical history was significant for arrhythmia, hypertensive heart disease, and pneumonia. The patients then underwent surgical repair with mesh cerclage. The patients were hospitalized for three days after surgery. On days 3, 7, 14, and 6 months after surgery the patients did not complain of any recurrence nor complications.

DISCUSSION

We did a modified anal encirclement surgical repair technique in managing these elderly patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and high-risk comorbidities using mesh to prevent recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Anal encirclement technique using mesh can be considered as an alternative procedure for the treatment of full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients with high-risk comorbidities because this procedure is simple, safe, causes fewer postoperative complications, and also can prevent recurrence.

Comprehensive and innovative techniques for laparoscopic choledocholithotomy: A surgical guide to successfully accomplish this advanced manipulation

Surgeries for benign diseases of the extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) are classified as lithotomy (i.e., choledocholithotomy) or diversion (i.e., choledochojejunostomy). Because of technical challenges, laparoscopic approaches for these surgeries have not gained worldwide popularity. The right upper quadrant of the abdomen is advantageous for laparoscopic procedures, and laparoscopic choledochojejunostomy is safe and feasible. Herein, we summarize tips and pitfalls in the actual procedures of choledocholithotomy. Laparoscopic choledocholithotomy with primary closure of the transductal incision and transcystic C-tube drainage has excellent clinical outcomes; however, emergent biliary drainage without endoscopic sphincterotomy and preoperative removal of anesthetic risk factors are required. Elastic suture should never be ligated directly on the cystic duct. Interrupted suture placement is the first choice for hemostasis near the EHBD. To prevent progressive laceration of the EHBD, full-layer interrupted sutures are placed at the upper and lower edges of the transductal incision. Cholangioscopy has only two-way operation; using dedicated forceps to atraumatically grasp the cholangioscope is important for smart maneuvering. The duration of intraoperative stone clearance accounts for most of the operative time. Moreover, dedicated forceps are an important instrument for atraumatic grasping of the cholangioscope. Damage to the cholangioscope requires expensive repair. Laparoscopic approach for choledocholithotomy involves technical difficulties. I hope this document with the visual explanation and literature review will be informative for skillful surgeons.

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.