[Complications after rectal prolapse surgery]

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.

Outcome of a Modified Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse with the Use of a Single or Double Suture: A Case Series of 15 Patients

BACKGROUND Surgery is considered to be a mainstay of therapy for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP). Surgical procedures for FTRP have been described, but optimal treatment is still controversial. The aim of this report is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a simplified laparoscopic suture rectopexy (LSR) in a case series of 15 patients who presented with FTRP and who had postoperative follow-up for six months. CASE REPORT Fifteen patients who underwent a modified LSR at our surgical unit from September 2010 were retrospectively evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 72.5±10.9 years. All 15 patients underwent general anesthesia, with rectal mobilization performed according to the plane of the total mesorectal excision. By lifting the mobilized and dissected rectum cranially to the promontorium, the optimal point for subsequent suture fixation of the rectum was marked. The seromuscular layer of the anterior right wall was then sutured to the presacral fascia using only one or two interrupted nonabsorbable polypropylene sutures. The mean operative time was 176.2±35.2 minutes, with minimal blood loss. No moderate or severe postoperative complications were observed, and there was no postoperative mortality. One patient (6.7%) developed recurrence of rectal prolapse one month following surgery. CONCLUSIONS The advantages of this LSR procedure for the management of patients with FTRP are its simplicity, safety, efficacy, and practicality and the potential for its use in patients who can tolerate general anesthesia.

[Intraoperative pitfalls and complications in defecation disorders and rectal prolapse]

BACKGROUND

No generally accepted gold standard exists for the operative therapy of rectal prolapse in its variety of manifestations. Existing evidence suggests that an individualized choice of procedure provides the best result for each single patient. Knowledge of possible pitfalls and intraoperative management of complications in frequently applied procedures are important prerequisites for reliable treatment of affected patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A consecutive series of 233 patients (June 2011-May 2016) with individualized choice of operative procedure in patients with rectal prolapse and rectocele based on an algorithm for a clinical treatment pathway and stapled hemorrhoidopexy were included. Intraoperative pitfalls and complications and their management (iPCM) were prospectively documented and analyzed.

RESULTS

The iPCM could be classified into three different categories: group I: iPCM was immediately noted and intraoperatively treated with no impact on the further clinical course (n = 20), group II: iPCM was successfully treated conservatively within a short time after the procedure (n = 9) and group III: iPCM required surgical revision (n = 5).

CONCLUSION

Individualized treatment of rectal prolapse and rectocele requires a broad spectrum of methods in specialized coloproctology units. A clinical treatment pathway facilitates the optimal choice of procedure. Overall the complication rates during surgical treatment of transanal rectal prolapse are low; however, available operative procedures hold specific risks and knowledge of these risks helps to avoid them. Once complications occur, measures demonstrated in this study lead to normal clinical courses in the majority of cases.