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

Quality of Life, Functional Outcomes, and Recurrence After Resection Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse Repair

BACKGROUND

Resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy are widely accepted surgical options for the treatment of rectal prolapse; however, reports on long-term recurrence rates and functional outcomes are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We compared quality of life, long-term functional outcomes, and prolapse recurrence after resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy.

DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively collected rectal prolapse surgery database.

SETTINGS

Patients who underwent resection rectopexy or ventral mesh rectopexy at our center between 2009 and 2016 were included.

PATIENTS

Two hundred twenty patients were included, of whom 208 (94%) were women; 85 (39%) underwent resection rectopexy and 135 (61%) ventral mesh rectopexy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prolapse recurrence.

RESULTS

The resection rectopexy group was younger (median 52 vs 60 years old, p = 0.02) and had more open procedures (20% vs 9%, p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 110 (interquartile range 94-146) months for resection rectopexy and 113 (87-137) months for ventral mesh rectopexy, recurrences occurred in 21 (26%) in the resection rectopexy and 50 (39%) in the ventral mesh rectopexy group ( p = 0.041). The median time to recurrence was 44 (18-80) months in the resection rectopexy group and 28.5 (11-52.5) months in the ventral mesh rectopexy group ( p = 0.14). There were no differences in the recurrence rate for primary prolapses in resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy. The recurrence rate for redo prolapses was higher in the ventral mesh rectopexy group at 63% at 10 years versus 25% in the resection rectopexy group ( p = 0.006). Functional outcomes were similar between the 2 groups.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective review, recall bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes after resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy were comparable. Ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with a higher prolapse recurrence rate after recurrent rectal prolapse repair. See Video Abstract .

CALIDAD DE VIDA, RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y RECURRENCIA DESPUS DE LA RECTOPEXIA POR RESECCIN VERSUS LA RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL CON MALLA PARA LA REPARACIN DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL

ANTECEDENTES:La rectopexia de resección y la rectopexia ventral con malla son opciones quirúrgicas ampliamente aceptadas para el tratamiento del prolapso rectal; sin embargo, faltan informes sobre las tasas de recurrencia a largo plazo y los resultados funcionales.OBJETIVO:Comparamos la calidad de vida, los resultados funcionales a largo plazo y la recurrencia del prolapso después de la rectopexia de resección versus la rectopexia ventral con malla.DISEÑO:Revisamos retrospectivamente nuestra base de datos de cirugía de prolapso rectal recopilada prospectivamente.ENTORNO CLÍNICO:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a rectopexia resección o rectopexia ventral con malla en nuestro centro entre 2009 y 2016.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron 220 pacientes, de los cuales 208 (94%) eran mujeres; 85 (39%) fueron sometidos a rectopexia de resección, 135 (61%) rectopexia ventral con malla.INTERVENCIONES:Ninguna.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Recurrencia del prolapso.RESULTADOS:El grupo de rectopexia de resección era más joven (mediana 52 vs 60 años, p = 0,02) y tenía más procedimientos abiertos (20% vs 9%, p < 0,001). Después de una mediana de seguimiento de 110 (RIC 94 - 146) meses para la rectopexia de resección y 113 (87 - 137) para la rectopexia ventral con malla, se produjeron recurrencias en 21 (26%) del grupo de rectopexia de resección y en 50 (39%) del grupo de rectopexia ventral con malla (p = 0,041). La mediana del tiempo hasta la recurrencia fue de 44 (18 - 80) meses en el grupo de rectopexia de resección y 28,5 (11 - 52,5) en el grupo de rectopexia ventral con malla (p = 0,14). No hubo diferencias en la tasa de recurrencia de prolapsos primarios en la rectopexia de resección versus la rectopexia con malla ventral. La tasa de recurrencia de prolapsos repetidos fue mayor en el grupo de rectopexia con malla ventral, 63% a los 10 años, versus 25% en el grupo de rectopexia con resección (p = 0,006). Los resultados funcionales fueron similares entre los dos grupos.LIMITACIONES:Revisión retrospectiva, sesgo.CONCLUSIÓN:La calidad de vida a largo plazo y los resultados funcionales después de la rectopexia de resección y la rectopexia ventral con malla fueron comparables. La rectopexia ventral con malla se asoció con una mayor tasa de recurrencia del prolapso después de la reparación del prolapso rectal recurrente. (Traducción-Ingrid Melo ).

Rectal Prolapse Surgery: Balancing Effectiveness and Safety in Abdominal and Perineal Approaches

The event in which the entire thickness of the rectum protrudes through the anal canal is called rectal prolapse. This ailment is common in the elderly population and especially in females. It causes some disastrous symptoms, including incontinence to feces and flatus, constipation, and discomfort, because of the weakness in the anorectal junction, making it mandatory for surgical correction. Over time, several surgical techniques have been developed; these are broadly classified into two categories: abdominal and perineal techniques. However, the best approach for surgery that minimizes recurrence while maximizing patient quality of life is still up for debate. A comprehensive review was conducted adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines; a systematic search of the PubMed Database was performed to identify studies published between 2000 and 2024 with the keywords ((Rectal Prolapse) AND ("Perineal" OR "Laparotomy")). The inclusion criteria were focused on studies comparing the outcomes between surgical approaches at the abdominal and perineal locations, particularly on the recurrence rate, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes. In total, 21 studies were included in the review: these ranged from retrospective analysis and prospective studies to a multicentric randomized trial. In this review, abdominal approaches, particularly in the form of laparoscopic rectopexy, consistently demonstrated improved results compared to perineal techniques, with a much lower recurrence rate. The rates of mortality and morbidity were also remarkably lower in laparoscopic operations, which were advocated for suitable patients. However, perineal approaches, while still producing higher rates of recurrence, are a valuable alternative for elderly and high-risk patients due to their being relatively less invasive. Laparoscopic rectopexy can be considered a better surgical method for rectal prolapse, as it has a lower recurrence rate and better functional outcomes. In contrast, perineal approaches will have their place in the management of rectal prolapse, given patient selection for patients at high risk with regard to surgery. Future research should be directed toward multicenter trials with long-term outcomes in order further to fine-tune surgery strategy and criteria for patient selection.

Trends in the surgical management of rectal prolapse: An Asian experience

BACKGROUND

Posterior compartment pelvic floor prolapse (PCPFP) leads to anatomical distortion and functional impairment. Definitive management involves surgery. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) has gained increasing popularity in the West as it emerges as a durable approach. Existing literature and evidence on safety and efficacy of PCPFP surgery in the Asian population remains sparse. Our study aims to review our institution's experience in surgery for PCPFP.

METHODS

All cases of PCPFP surgery in Singapore General Hospital between 2014 to 2019 were studied.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients had surgery performed for PCPFP, with the majority (83%) in the last 3 years. Median age was 63 years and 92% were female. Most patients (64%) had obstructive defecation symptoms, while the remaining had fecal incontinence, rectal bleeding, or anal discomfort. Main anatomical indication for surgery was external rectal prolapse (48%). Other indications were rectocele and/or rectal intussusception. The majority (66%) had abdominal rectopexy, while 28 underwent Delorme's procedure. Forty-five of the 50 VMRs were minimally invasive. Patients undergoing rectopexy were observed to be younger. Median length of stay was 3 days. Nine patients had early operative complications of which ileus was most common. Median length of follow-up was 12 months. The majority (93%) had initial symptom satisfaction. Eleven patients had anatomical recurrence with a median length of 9 months to development. There was no significant difference in outcomes between abdominal vs perineal approach, or laparoscopic vs robotic VMR.

CONCLUSION

Surgery for PCPFP has gained acceptance in our Asian institution with good symptom improvement, alongside low morbidity and recurrence.

Changing Trend of Rectal Prolapse Surgery in the Era of the Minimally Invasive Surgery

With the life span of the general population increased, rectal prolapse in elderly patients became a major concern in terms of the decision of the treatment modalities and quality of life of patients. Most elderly patients with rectal prolapse in the past received a perineal approach with the fear of general anesthetic complications rather than the abdominal approach. However, improvement in perioperative care in anesthesiology and minimally invasive surgery, the trend of surgical management of rectal prolapse is rapidly changing. Minimally invasive surgery including the laparoscopic and robotic surgeries showed comparable short-term outcomes even in elderly patients. Recently published guidelines also recommended a laparoscopic abdominal approach for the management of rectal prolapse.