Modified robotic ventral rectopexy with folded single titanized mesh suspension for the treatment of complex pelvic organ prolapse

AIM

The incidence of complex pelvic organ prolapse in female patients is about 38%, and this disorder entails social and sexual restrictions. Treatment for this disorder is complex because it can enhance other, latent, problems. The aim of the present study is to describe a new robotic-assisted technique to simultaneously treat prolapses of different compartments with the use of a single titanized polypropylene mesh.

METHOD

All patients referred from January 2018 to March 2019 to the Proctologic and Pelvic Floor Clinical Centre who were affected by complex pelvic organ prolapse underwent modified robotic ventral rectopexy with a folded single mesh (RVR-FSM). The anatomical and functional outcomes were respectively evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) grading system and Wexner scores of constipation and incontinence. The satisfaction rate was investigated using a five-point scale (1 = not satisfied to 5 = extremely satisfied).

RESULTS

Twenty-two women underwent RVR-FSM with a homogeneous follow-up of 12 months. The mean total operation time was 148 min, without any robot-related or other intraoperative complications. No mesh-related complications occurred. The POP-Q grade improved for every patient, with complete resolution of bulging symptoms in 21 patients (95.4%) at 1 year of follow-up. The Wexner constipation score showed a significant improvement, while the incontinence score slightly improved at 1 year after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The use of a single mesh that can be folded was shown to provide significant improvement in functional and anatomical results associated with patient satisfaction. The robotic approach allows surgeons to perform an easier procedure with correct and deep mesh fixation.

Tunneling of Mesh during Ventral Rectopexy: Technical Aspects and Long-Term Functional Results

Avoiding the extensive damage of pelvic structures during ventral rectopexy could minimize secondary disfunctions. The objective of our observational study is to assess the safety and functional efficacy of a modified ventral rectopexy. In the modified ventral rectopexy, a retroperitoneal tunnel was created along the right side of rectum, connecting two peritoneal mini-incisions at the Douglas pouch and sacral promontory. The proximal edge of a polypropylene mesh, sutured over the ventral rectum, was pulled up through the retroperitoneal tunnel and fixed to the sacral promontory. In all patients, radiopaque clips were placed on the mesh, making it radiographically "visible". Before surgery and at follow up visits, Altomare, Longo, CCSS, PAC-SYM, and CCFI scores were collected. From March 2010 to September 2021, 117 patients underwent VR. Modified ventral rectopexy was performed in 65 patients, while the standard ventral rectopexy was performed in 52 patients. The open approach was used in 97 cases (55 and 42 patients in modified and standard VR, respectively), while MI surgery was used in 20 cases (10 and 10 patients in modified and standard VR, respectively). A slightly shorter operative time and hospital stay were observed following modified ventral rectopexy (though this was not statistically significant). Similar overall complication rates were registered in the modified vs. standard ventral rectopexies (4.6% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.779). At follow-up, the Longo score (14.0 ± 8.6 vs. 11.0 ± 8.2, p = 0.042) and "delta" values of Altomare (9.2 ± 6.1 vs. 5.9 ± 6.3, p = 0.008) and CCSS (8.4 ± 6.3 vs. 6.1 ± 6.1, p = 0.037) scores were significantly improved in the modified ventral rectopexy group. A similar occurrence of symptoms recurrence was diagnosed in the two groups. Radiopaque clips helped to accurately diagnose mesh detachment/dislocation. The proposed modified VR seems to be feasible and safe. Marking the mesh intraoperatively seems useful.

Approaching Combined Rectal and Vaginal Prolapse

Combined rectal prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse surgery provides significant quality-of-life benefits with improvements in bothersome symptoms of pain, bulge, constipation, urinary retention, as well as bowel and bladder incontinence. Robotic surgery is the ideal tool for a combined surgical repair. It allows enhanced suturing in the deep pelvis, three-dimensional (3D) visualization of the presacral space and easy mobilization of the rectum and dissection of the vagina. Combined procedures can be offered to patients with the advantages of a single operation and concurrent recovery period without increasing complications. In this article, we highlight our approach to combined prolapse repair.

Restored pelvic anatomy is preserved after laparoscopic and robot-assisted ventral rectopexy: MRI-based 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Our aim was to compare the long-term anatomical outcomes between robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for external or internal rectal prolapse.

METHOD

This study is a follow-up of a single-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT). Thirty patients were randomly allocated to RVMR (n = 16) or LVMR (n = 14). The primary end-point was maintenance of the restored pelvic anatomy 5 years after the operation, as assessed by magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography. Secondary outcome measures included the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measures and functional results assessed using symptom questionnaires.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (14 RVMR and 12 LVMR) completed the 5-year follow-up and were included in the study. The MRI results, POP-Q measurements and symptom-specific quality of life measures did not differ between the RVMR and LVMR groups. The MRI measurements of the total study population remained unchanged between 3 months and 5 years. In the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), the RVMR group had lower symptom scores (mean 96.0, SD 70.7) than the LVMR group (mean 160.6, SD 58.9; P = 0.004). In the subscales of pelvic organ prolapse (POPDI-6) (mean 23.2, SD 24.3 vs mean 52.4, SD 22.4; P = 0.001) and the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) (mean 38.4, SD 23.3 vs mean 58.6, SD 25.4; P = 0.009), the patients in the RVMR group had significantly better outcomes.

CONCLUSION

After VMR, the corrected anatomy was preserved. There were no clinically significant differences in anatomical results between the RVMR and LVMR procedures 5 years after surgery based on MR defaecography. However, functional outcomes were better after RMVR.

A Collaborative Approach to Multicompartment Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse is common yet frequently underreported and unrecognized. Although not life-threatening, the impact on quality of life and daily functioning can be significant. Multidisciplinary evaluation and treatment with specialists in colorectal and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) help to identify patients who will benefit from surgical treatment of vaginal and rectal prolapse. Both abdominal and perineal combined procedures can be offered to patients with a single operation and concurrent recovery period without increasing complications.

Ventral Rectopexy

Rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition that often results in impaired quality of life. Posterior compartment defects including rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception are often associated with middle and anterior compartment prolapse and require a multicompartment approach to treatment. In recent years, ventral rectopexy, with or without sacrocolpopexy for combined middle compartment prolapse, has emerged as a safe and effective method of treatment for rectal prolapse. In this article, we aim to review the etiology of rectal prolapse and intussusception, describe the indications and workup for surgery, discuss technical aspects of ventral rectopexy alone and in combination with sacrocolpopexy, review potential surgical complications, and describe the reported outcomes of the surgery.

Abdominal rectopexy for the treatment of internal rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Internal rectal prolapse (IRP) is a unique functional disorder that presents with a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms, including constipation and/or faecal incontinence (FI). The present review aims to analyse the results of trials evaluating the role of abdominal rectopexy in the treatment of IRP with regard to regarding functional and technical outcomes.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature for the role of abdominal rectopexy in patients with IRP was conducted. PubMed/Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for published and unpublished studies from January 2000 to December 2015.

RESULTS

We reviewed 14 studies including 1301 patients (1180 women) of a median age of 59 years. The weighted mean rates of improvement of obstructed defaecation (OD) and FI across the studies were 73.9% and 60.2%, respectively. Twelve studies reported clinical recurrence in 84 (6.9%) patients. The weighted mean recurrence rate of IRP among the studies was 5.8% (95% CI: 4.2-7.5). Two hundred and thirty complications were reported with a weighted mean complication rate of 15%. Resection rectopexy had lower recurrence rates than did ventral rectopexy, whereas ventral rectopexy achieved better symptomatic improvement, a shorter operative time and a lower complication rate.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal rectopexy for IRP attained satisfactory results with improvement of OD and, to a lesser extent, FI, a low incidence of recurrence and an acceptable morbidity rate. Although ventral rectopexy was associated with higher recurrence rates, lower complication rates and better improvement of bowel symptoms than resection rectopexy, these findings cannot be confirmed owing to the limitations of this review.

Optimizing Treatment for Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse is associated with debilitating symptoms and leads to both functional impairment and anatomic distortion. Symptoms include rectal bulge, mucous drainage, bleeding, incontinence, constipation, tenesmus, as well as discomfort, pressure, and pain. The only cure is surgical. The optimal surgical repair is not yet defined though laparoscopic rectopexy with mesh is emerging as a more durable approach. The chosen approach should be individually tailored, taking into account factors such as presence of pelvic floor defects and coexistence of vaginal prolapse, severe constipation, surgical fitness, and whether the patient has had a previous prolapse procedure. Consideration of a multidisciplinary approach is critical in patients with concomitant vaginal prolapse. Surgeons must weigh their familiarity with each approach and should have in their armamentarium both perineal and abdominal approaches. Previous barriers to abdominal procedures, such as age and comorbidities, are waning as minimally invasive approaches have gained acceptance. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is one such approach offering relatively low morbidity, low recurrence rates, and good functional improvement. However, proficiency with this procedure may require advanced training. Robotic rectopexy is another burgeoning approach which facilitates suturing in the pelvis. Successful rectal prolapse surgeries improve function and have low recurrence rates, though it is important to note that correcting the prolapse does not assure functional improvement.

Are we burying our heads in the sand? Preventing small bowel obstruction from the V-loc® suture in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

AIM

There have been increasing reports in the literature highlighting the complication of V-loc® associated small bowel obstruction in patients after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using clinical and experimental evidence, we demonstrate that bowel obstruction from the V-loc® following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy will still occur despite the technical recommendations to bury or cut its barbed end flush.

CONCLUSION

The risk of bowel obstruction from the V-loc® following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is not negated by burying or cutting its barbed end flush. We have proposed its pathogenesis to refute commonly held assumptions about its prevention.

Mesh-free Ventral Rectopexy for Women with Complete Rectal and Uterovaginal Prolapse

Background:

Mesh rectopexy may be associated with infective complications, erosion into the vagina or rectum, and disintegration or dislodgement. A mesh-free rectopexy will avoid these complications. Objective of the study was to perform mesh-free ventral rectopexy and assess its safety and effectiveness.

Materials and Methods:

Nine women with complete rectal and uterovaginal prolapse were treated with total abdominal hysterectomy, closure of the vaginal vault, extirpation of the pouch of Douglas and suture of anterior rectal wall to the posterior vaginal wall (ventral suture rectopexy). The ventral suture rectopexy was achieved by three pairs of interrupted silk sutures, 2.5 cm above each other, and the first pair very close to the pelvic floor. This composite structure (anterior rectal wall and posterior vaginal wall), sits astride the perineal body. Intussusception and subsequent prolapse of the sutured rectum and vaginal wall is prevented. Vaginal vault prolapse was prevented by the suture of each round ligament of the uterus to the corresponding lateral vaginal fornix. No mesh was used.

Results:

Nine multiparous women aged between 52 and 70 years had the procedure. The mean operative time was 135 minutes (range 110-220). The follow-up period was between 29 months and 7 years. Full continence was restored in all patients within eight weeks of the operation. Bowel habit returned to once daily in four patients and once every other day in the remaining five patients, within thirteen weeks of surgery. One patient had intermittent mucus discharge per rectum for six months. This stopped without a specific treatment. There has been no known recurrence in these nine patients. One patient developed wound infection as a complication. There was no mortality. All the patients are now asymptomatic.

Conclusion:

Ventral suture rectopexy is a safe and effective treatment for complete rectal prolapse in a selected group of patients.