New-onset rectoanal intussusception may not result in symptomatic improvement after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

Factors Predicting the Presence of Concomitant Enterocele and Rectocele in Female Patients With External Rectal Prolapse

Purpose

External rectal prolapse (ERP) is frequently associated with other pelvic disorders, such as enterocele, rectocele, and perineal descent. Evacuation proctography makes it possible to visualize the development of such anatomical abnormalities. The aim of this study was to identify the variables that would predict associated abnormalities in patients with ERP.

Methods

Between February 2010 and August 2019, 124 female patients with ERP, who were evaluated using proctography were included in this study. Enterocele was diagnosed when the extension of the loop of the small bowel was located between the vagina and rectum. A significant rectocele was defined as >20 mm in diameter. Multivariate analysis was used to establish which morphological parameters best predicted the presence of enterocele or rectocele.

Results

Sixty-five patients had ERP alone, while 59 patients (47.6%) had additional findings on proctography. The most frequently associated abnormality was enterocele with 48 of the patients (38.7%) having this condition. Rectocele was detected in 17 of the 124 patients (13.7%). The median length of the ERP was 30 mm (range, 7 to 147 mm). The results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that a history of hysterectomy and the length of the ERP were significantly associated with the presence of enterocele. The analysis showed that the longer the prolapse, the higher the incidence of enterocele. A history of hysterectomy was also significantly associated with the presence of rectocele.

Conclusion

Patients with ERP often have associated anatomical abnormalities and should be investigated thoroughly before planning surgical treatment.

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.

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.

Midterm functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Although long-term crude outcomes of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse (ERP) have been documented, repetitive functional and quality of life (QOL) assessments are scarce. This study assessed midterm annual functional results and QOL after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for ERP.

METHODS

This study consisted of 58 patients and was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, the Constipation Scoring System, and QOL instruments (ie 36-item Short-Form Health Survey and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale) were administered before and after operation.

RESULTS

There was no mortality or major morbidity. After a median follow-up of 49 months (6-92 months), recurrence of ERP was noted in one patient (2%). There were no mesh-related complications. The median Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score was significantly reduced at 3 months (34 [10-61] vs 12 [0-50], P < 0.0001) and remained significantly reduced for 5 years. The median Constipation Scoring System score was significantly reduced at 3 months (14 [9-20] vs 7 [0-16], P < 0.0001) and remained significantly reduced for 4 years. No patients developed new-onset constipation. All of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scales significantly improved overtime for 4 years. All of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scales were significantly improved at 3 and 6 months, but none of the scales significantly improved after 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for ERP was associated with low morbidity, low recurrence, and a midterm improvement in function and fecal incontinence-specific QOL.

Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial

Background

The aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome.

Methods

A prospective randomized study was conducted on patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for internal or external rectal prolapse at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, recruited in February–May 2012. The primary outcomes were health care costs from the hospital perspective and HRQoL measured by the 15D-instrument. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification method and functional outcome by symptom questionnaires at 24 months follow-up.

Results

There were 30 females (mean age 62.5 years, SD 11.2), 16 in the RVMR group and 14 in the LVMR group. The surgery-related costs of the RVMR were 1.5 times higher than the cost of the LVMR. At 3 months the changes in HRQoL were ‘much better’ (RVMR) and ‘slightly better’ (LVMR) but declined in both groups at 2 years (RVMR vs. LVMR, p > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness was poor at 2 years for both techniques, but if the outcomes were assumed to last for 5 years, it improved significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the RVMR compared to LVMR was €39,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 2 years and improved to €16,707/QALYs at 5 years. Posterior wall anatomy was restored similarly in both groups. The subjective satisfaction rate was 87% in the RVMR group and 69% in the LVMR group (p = 0.83).

Conclusions

Although more expensive than LVMR in the short term, RVMR is cost-effective in long-term. The minimally invasive VMR improves pelvic floor function, sexual function and restores posterior compartment anatomy. The effect on HRQoL is minor, with no differences between techniques.

Does Ventral Rectopexy Improve Pelvic Floor Function in the Long Term?

BACKGROUND

Information is needed on long-term functional results, sequelas, and outcome predictors for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term function postventral rectopexy in patients with external rectal prolapse or internal rectal prolapse in a large cohort and to identify the possible effects of patient-related factors and operative technical details on patient-reported outcomes.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review with a cross-sectional questionnaire study.

SETTINGS

Data were collated from prospectively collected registries in 2 university and 2 central hospitals in Finland.

PATIENTS

All 508 consecutive patients treated with ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse in 2005 to 2013 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

A questionnaire concerning disease-related symptoms and effect on quality of life was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Defecatory function measured by the Wexner score, the obstructive defecation score, and subjective symptom and quality-of-life evaluation using the visual analog scale were included. The effects of patient-related factors and operative technical details were assessed using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The questionnaire response rate was 70.7% (330/467 living patients) with a median follow-up time of 44 months. The mean Wexner scores were 7.0 (SD = 6.1) and 6.9 (SD = 5.6), and the mean obstructive defecation scores were 9.7 (SD = 7.6) and 12.3 (SD = 8.0) for patients presenting with external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse. Subjective symptom relief was experienced by 76% and reported more often by patients with external rectal prolapse than with internal rectal prolapse (86% vs 68%; p < 0.001). Complications occurred in 11.4% of patients, and the recurrence rate for rectal prolapse was 7.1%.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its lack of preoperative functional data and suboptimal questionnaire response rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventral mesh rectopexy effectively treats posterior pelvic floor dysfunction with a low complication rate and an acceptable recurrence rate. Patients with external rectal prolapse benefit more from the operation than those with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A479.

A novel technique of introducing the mesh at the distal dissection while performing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) is considered an effective treatment for rectal prolapse and/or rectoanal intussusception. After the dissection of the rectovaginal septum down to the pelvic floor, a strip of mesh is introduced and should be secured as distally as possible. We have developed a novel technique of introducing the mesh at the distal dissection.

METHOD

A nylon thread with straight needle was passed through the posterior wall of vagina at the distal extent of the dissection, which was caught in the abdominal cavity and fixed at the end of the mesh extracorporeally. The mesh was then introduced, pulled toward the pelvic floor and settled at the pierced site by the perineal operator.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight female patients underwent LVR using this technique. There were no intra-operative and postoperative mesh-related complications. The mean distance from the vaginal ostium to the point of passing a nylon thread through the posterior wall of the vagina was 2 cm. Postoperative proctography showed the anatomical correction in 47 of the 48 patients who were examined.

CONCLUSION

The surgeon can confirm that the mesh is introduced and secured at the distal dissection by using this technique while performing LVR.

Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse

External and internal rectal prolapse with their affiliated rectocele and enterocele, are associated with debilitating symptoms such as obstructed defecation, pelvic pain and faecal incontinence. Since perineal procedures are associated with a higher recurrence rate, an abdominal approach is commonly preferred. Despite the description of greater than three hundred different procedures, thus far no clear superiority of one surgical technique has been demonstrated. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a relatively new and promising technique to correct rectal prolapse. In contrast to the abdominal procedures of past decades, VMR avoids posterolateral rectal mobilisation and thereby minimizes the risk of postoperative constipation. Because of a perceived acceptable recurrence rate, good functional results and low mesh-related morbidity in the short to medium term, VMR has been popularized in the past decade. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted VMR is now being progressively performed internationally and several articles and guidelines propose the procedure as the treatment of choice for rectal prolapse. In this article, an outline of the current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse is presented.