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

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.

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.

Clinical outcome of the Gant-Miwa-Thiersch procedure for colonic mucosal prolapse after intersphincteric resection-a single-center report from Japan

Introduction

Dysfunctions such as mucosal prolapse occur after intersphincteric resection (ISR) to treat lower rectal cancer, even when it is possible to preserve the anus.

Method

We analyzed the data of 12 patients with rectal or colonic prolapse who underwent the Gant-Miwa-Thiersch procedure between March 2017 and May 2021.

Result

There were no severe postoperative complications or recurrences.

Case presentation

A 75-year-old Japanese man initially underwent ISR and had mucosal prolapse nine months after his initial operation. We performed the Gant-Miwa-Thiersch procedure for colonic mucosal prolapse after ISR.

Surgical procedure

Our procedure is a perineal plication method of prolapsed colonic mucosa with nylon wiring (The Gant-Miwa procedure), using a 1-nylon wire encircled three times to straighten the anal canal, with a cord inserted above the internal sphincter muscle (Thiersch procedure).

Discussion

Mucosal plication is performed via the Gant-Mowa or Delorme procedure to reduce the risk of recurrence. However, mucosal plication can be performed many times. Our Thiersch procedure involves encircling and straightening the anal canal with a 1-nylon wire to fix the new internal anal sphincter. In conclusion, the Gant-Miwa-Thiersch procedure for rectal and colonic mucosal prolapse, especially after ISR, is a viable treatment option.

•

Our procedure is The Gant-Miwa procedure, using a 1-nylon wire encircled three times (Thiersch procedure).

•

Mucosal plication is performed via the Gant-Mowa or Delorme procedure to reduce the risk of recurrence.

•

The Gant-Miwa-Thiersch procedure for rectal and colonic mucosal prolapse, especially after ISR, is a viable treatment option.