Clinical and functional outcome of laparoscopic posterior rectopexy (Wells) for full-thickness rectal prolapse. A prospective study

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.

European Society of Coloproctology guidance on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery

This is a comprehensive and rigorous review of currently available data on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery. This guideline outlines the limitations of available data and the challenges of interpretation, followed by best possible recommendations.

Surgical Techniques for Rectal Prolapse

Complete rectal prolapse or rectal procidentia is a debilitating disease that presents with fecal incontinence, constipation, and rectal discharge. Definitive surgical techniques described for this disease include perineal procedures such as mucosectomy and rectosigmoidectomy, and abdominal procedures such as rectopexy with or without mesh and concomitant resection. The debate over these techniques regarding the lowest recurrence and morbidity rates, and the best functional outcomes for constipation or incontinence, has been going on for decades. The heterogeneity of available studies does not allow us to draw firm conclusions. This article aims to review the surgical techniques for complete rectal prolapse based on the current evidence base regarding surgical and functional outcomes.

Perineal stapled prolapse resection for external rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Rectal prolapse is an uncommon but debilitating pelvic floor disorder that significantly decreases the quality of life of affected patients. Perineal stapled prolapse resection is a relatively new perineal approach that offers an promising alternative technique in the surgical management of rectal prolapse. It appears to be a simple, reproducible and efficient method. However, long-term outcomes are limited. The aims of this review are to assess the safety and effectiveness of perineal stapled prolapse resection in the management of rectal prolapse.

METHOD

A systematic review of all articles describing this approach was searched using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Included in this review were all randomized and nonrandomized prospective and retrospective studies reporting patients (aged 16 years and older) with complete rectal prolapse who underwent perineal stapled prolapse resection for the surgical treatment of the rectal prolapse.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients across 20 articles were included. There were 58 cases of recurrence out of 368 patients over a median length of follow-up of 18 months (interquartile range 12-34 months). The total weighted overall recurrence was 12%. There were 51 cases of postoperative complications in 350 cases, bleeding being the most common complication.

CONCLUSION

The recurrence rate is comparable to those of the well-established Altemeier and Delorme procedures. However, given the heterogeneity of studies and variations in lengths of follow-up, further randomized prospective studies are needed to adequately compare this technique against other procedures for complete rectal prolapse.

Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse in the Laparoscopic Era; A Review of the Literature

Rectal prolapse is associated with debilitating symptoms including the discomfort of prolapsing tissue, mucus discharge, hemorrhage, and defecation disorders of fecal incontinence, constipation, or both. The aim of treatment is to eliminate the prolapse, correct associated bowel function and prevent new onset of bowel dysfunction. Historically, abdominal procedures have been indicated for young fit patients, whereas perineal approaches have been preferred in older frail patients with significant comorbidity. Recently, the laparoscopic procedures with their advantages of less pain, early recovery, and lower morbidity have emerged as an effective tool for the treatment of rectal prolapse. This article aimed to review the current evidence base for laparoscopic procedures and perineal procedures, and to compare the results of various techniques. As a result, laparoscopic procedures showed a relatively low recurrence rate than the perineal procedures with comparable complication rates. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy had a small advantage in the improvement of constipation or the prevention of new-onset constipation compared with other laparoscopic procedures. However, the optimal surgical repair has not been clearly demonstrated because of the significant heterogeneity of available studies. An individualized approach is recommended for every patient, considering age, comorbidity, and the underlying anatomical and functional disorders.

Clinical Outcome and Surgical Technique of Laparoscopic Posterior Rectopexy Using the Mesh With Anti-adhesion Coating

We herein present an innovative technique of laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (LPMR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse and report the clinical outcomes in our institution. Ten consecutive patients who were treated with our latest LPMR technique using mesh with an anti-adhesion coating from June 2014 to May 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were women with a mean age of 63.6 years (range, 39 to 82 y). The median operative time and blood loss volume were 197.5 minutes (range, 156 to 285 min) and 0 mL (range, 0 to 152 mL), respectively. No perioperative complications occurred, including surgical site infection, pneumonia, urinary dysfunction, and intestinal obstruction. The median follow-up duration was 768 days (range, 396 to 1150 d). During the follow-up, the cumulative incidence of full-thickness rectal prolapse and any mesh-related complications was 0. It may be possible to eliminate retroperitoneal closure using a mesh with an anti-adhesion coating. Our LPMR technique appears safe and acceptable.

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.

Laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse: a case report

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer with rectal prolapse is rare, described by only a few case reports. Recently, laparoscopic surgery has become standard procedure for either rectal cancer or rectal prolapse. However, the use of laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse has not been reported.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 63-year-old Japanese woman suffered from rectal prolapse, with a mass and rectal bleeding for 2 years. An examination revealed complete rectal prolapse and the presence of a soft tumor, 7 cm in diameter; the distance from the anal verge to the tumor was 5 cm. Colonoscopy demonstrated a large villous tumor in the lower rectum, which was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma on biopsy. We performed laparoscopic low anterior resection using the prolapsing technique without rectopexy. The distal surgical margin was more than 1.5 cm from the tumor. There were no major perioperative complications. Twelve months after surgery, our patient is doing well with no evidence of recurrence of either the rectal prolapse or the cancer, and she has not suffered from either fecal incontinence or constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic low anterior resection without rectopexy can be an appropriate surgical procedure for rectal cancer with rectal prolapse. The prolapsing technique is useful in selected patients.

Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Wells Rectopexy for Complete Rectal Prolapse: Long-Term Results

BACKGROUND

There is no agreement about which laparoscopic rectopexy technique is best for treating complete rectal prolapse. Purpose was to compare functional outcome, the recurrence rate, and quality of life in patients treated with laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) versus the laparoscopic Wells rectopexy (LWR) for complete rectal prolapse.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients who presented with complete rectal prolapse. Patients were divided into two cohorts: first one had LVR and the other one had LWR. Exclusion criteria were previous major abdominal surgery, slow transit constipation, Hirschsprung's disease, inflammatory bowel disease, pregnancy, and patients on drugs that cause constipation. Patients were assessed preoperatively by clinical examination to evaluate constipation using the Wexner constipation scale (WCS), incontinence using the Wexner incontinence score (WIS), and quality of life using the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQOL). The primary outcome measures were disappearance of prolapse and recurrences. Secondary outcome parameters were operative time, complications, length of hospital stay, effect on perineal descent, functional outcome (constipation and continence), and quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients (mean age of 55 years) with complete rectal prolapse had LVR (n = 41) and LWR (n = 33). Sixty (81%) patients were females. Operative time was significantly longer in LVR (122 minutes versus 105 minutes; P = .001). Also, length of stay was significantly longer in LVR (4.5 days versus 3.7 days; P = .04). Recurrences were reported in 1 patient in each group. Perineal descent improved >50% in defecogram 6 months postoperatively in 79% in LVR versus 21% in LWR. In LVR, mean WCS decreased from 11.3 to 5.1 postoperatively (P < .0001), while in LWR it decreased from 8.9 to 6.9 (P = .11). Mean WIS decreased in LVR from 5.9 to 3.8, P = .01, while in LWR, it decreased from 6.6 to 2.8; P = .001. GIQOL improved from 74.4 to 124.9 in LVR and from 79.3 to 112.6 in LWR. The change in both groups was statistically significant (P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, both LVR and LWR successfully and safely corrected the prolapse and prevented recurrence in patients after long-term follow-up. Operative time and hospital length of stay are significantly shorter in LWR. High incontinence scores and age >70 are potential predictors of bad continence postoperatively. LVR appears to be more suitable for patients with a high constipation score and abnormal perineal descent.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and pelvic floor disorders

Pelvic floor disorders are different dysfunctions of gynaecological, urinary or anorectal organs, which can present as incontinence, outlet-obstruction and organ prolapse or as a combination of these symptoms. Pelvic floor disorders affect a substantial amount of people, predominantly women. Transabdominal procedures play a major role in the treatment of these disorders. With the development of new techniques established open procedures are now increasingly performed laparoscopically. Operation techniques consist of various rectopexies with suture, staples or meshes eventually combined with sigmoid resection. The different approaches need to be measured by their operative and functional outcome and their recurrence rates. Although these operations are performed frequently a comparison and evaluation of the different methods is difficult, as most of the used outcome measures in the available studies have not been standardised and data from randomised studies comparing these outcome measures directly are lacking. Therefore evidence based guidelines do not exist. Currently the laparoscopic approach with ventral mesh rectopexy or resection rectopexy is the two most commonly used techniques. Observational and retrospective studies show good functional results, a low rate of complications and a low recurrence rate. As high quality evidence is missing, an individualized approach is recommend for every patient considering age, individual health status and the underlying morphological and functional disorders.

Diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence: Consensus statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists

Faecal incontinence is a common and disturbing condition, which leads to impaired quality of life and huge social and economic costs. Although recent studies have identified novel diagnostic modalities and therapeutic options, the best diagnostic and therapeutic approach is not yet completely known and shared among experts in this field. The Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists selected a pool of experts to constitute a joint committee on the basis of their experience in treating pelvic floor disorders. The aim was to develop a position paper on the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of faecal incontinence, to provide practical recommendations for a cost-effective diagnostic work-up and a tailored treatment strategy. The recommendations were defined and graded on the basis of levels of evidence in accordance with the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and were based on currently published scientific evidence. Each statement was drafted through constant communication and evaluation conducted both online and during face-to-face working meetings. A brief recommendation at the end of each paragraph allows clinicians to find concise responses to each diagnostic and therapeutic issue.

Mesh pouch pexy in the management of J-pouch prolapse

J-pouch prolapse is a rare complication after IPAA. To date, limited data exist regarding management of this condition, with most reported cases involving suture pouch pexy. We present our experience and technique with 3 patients who were treated with transabdominal mesh pexy repair.

Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Will it be the Gold Standard?

A review of the current literature is presented regarding the surgical management of full thickness rectal prolapse, comparing laparoscopic rectopexy with open abdominal operations and perineal procedures. Outcome measures include length of stay, short- and long-term outcomes and financial burdens. Current evidence suggests that laparoscopic rectopexy as treatment for full thickness rectal prolapse is a safe alternative to the other options.

The effect of abdominal ventral rectopexy on faecal incontinence and constipation in patients with internal intra-anal rectal intussusception

AIM

Optimal treatment of anal incontinence in a patients with a normal anal sphincter is controversial, as is the role of intra-anal rectal intussusception in anal incontinence. We evaluated the results of abdominal ventral rectopexy on anal continence in such patients.

METHOD

Forty consecutive patients with incontinence and intra-anal rectal intussusception without a sphincter defect were treated by abdominal ventral mesh rectopexy without sigmoidectomy. The Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), patient satisfaction and constipation before and after surgery and recurrence were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean CCI scores were 13.2 (=/-4.25) preoperatively and 3 (±3.44) postoperatively (P<0.0001). Patient assessment was reported as 'cured' in 26 (65%), 'improved' in 13 (32.5%) and 'unchanged' in one (2.5%) patient. Constipation was induced in two (5%) patients and was cured in 13 of 20 (65%) patients who were constipated before surgery. One case of recurrent prolapse occurred after a mean follow-up of 38 months.

CONCLUSION

Intra-anal rectal intussusception may be associated with anal incontinence. For these patients, abdominal ventral mesh rectopexy appears to be an adequate treatment.

Abdominal resection rectopexy with an absorbable polyglactin mesh: prospective evaluation of morphological and functional changes with consecutive improvement of patient's symptoms

BACKGROUND

The pathophysiology of rectal prolapse and intussusception has not yet been clarified. This is reflected in the multiplicity of surgical procedures. The aim of this prospective study was to measure morphological and functional changes of the pelvic floor and the rectum before and after resection rectopexy.

METHODS

A total of 21 patients (mean age 60 years; 2 men, 19 women) with manifest rectal prolapse and rectoanal intussusception underwent sigmoidectomy and rectopexy with an absorbable polyglactin mesh graft. The following analyses were performed preoperatively and, on average, 15 months (range 6-21 month) postoperatively: radiologic defecography, rectal volumetry, sphincter manometry, and evaluation of clinical symptoms.

RESULTS

Postoperatively there was no patient with rectal prolapse, and only one with an intussusception. Rectal compliance increased from 6.4 to 10.2 ml/mmHg. Rectal volumetry showed a decrease of the thresholds for the sensation of "desire to defecate" and "maximal tolerated volume" (100-75 ml, 175-150 ml). Postoperatively, there was a higher level of the pelvic floor during contraction. The anorectal angle, vector volume, radial asymmetry, sphincter length, and resting and squeezing pressures were unchanged. Surgery improved rectal evacuation (p = 0.03), continence (p = 0.01), stool consistency (p = 0.03), and warning period (p = 0.01). Patients' personal assessment showed an improved overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Resection rectopexy is a reliable method for treating rectal prolapse and rectoanal intussusception with clear improvement of the patient's clinical symptoms. The restored anorectal function can be attributed to improved rectal compliance, a lower sensory threshold, an elevation of the pelvic floor during squeezing, and an improved rectal evacuation.

Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is defined as a protrusion of the rectum beyond the anus. Although rectal prolapse was recognized as early as 1500 BC, the optimal surgical procedure is still debated. The varied operative procedures available for treating rectal prolapsed can be confusing. The aim of treatment is to control the prolapse, restore continence, and prevent constipation or impaired evacuation. In elderly and high-risk patients, perineal approaches, such as Delorme's operation and Altemeier's operation, have been preferred, although the incidence of recurrence and the rate of persistent incontinence seem to be high when compared with transabdominal procedures. Abdominal operations involve dissection and fixation of the rectum and may include a rectosigmoid resection. From the late twentieth century, the laparoscopic procedure has been applied to the treatment of rectal prolapse. Current laparoscopic surgical techniques include suture rectopexy, stapled rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy with artificial material, and resection of the sigmoid colon with colorectal anastomosis with or without rectopexy. The choice of surgery depends on the status of the patient and the surgeon's preference.

Laparoscopy for benign colorectal diseases

The applicability of laparoscopy to many complex intraabdominal colorectal procedures continues to expand, and has been shown to be feasible and safe in experienced hands. Data are available on the elderly, rectal prolapse, diverticulitis, Hartman's takedown, small bowel obstruction, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis. Clinically relevant advantages have been clearly demonstrated in selected patient populations. Laparoscopic surgery for benign colorectal disease should be considered in patients suitable for this approach to an abdominal operation.