Ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation

Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In elderly patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse (EFTRP), the exact differences in postoperative recurrence and functional outcomes between laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and perineal stapler resection (PSR) have not yet been investigated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicenter study on 330 elderly patients divided into LVMR group (n = 250) and PSR (n = 80) from April 2012 to April 2019. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery by Wexner incontinence scale, Altomare constipation scale, and patient satisfaction questionnaire. The primary outcomes were incidence and risk factors for EFTRP recurrence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative incontinence, constipation, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

LVMR was associated with fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001), lower prolapse recurrence (p < 0.001), lower Wexner incontinence score (p = 0.03), and lower Altomare's score (p = 0.047). Furthermore, LVMR demonstrated a significantly higher surgery-recurrence interval (p < 0.001), incontinence improvement (p = 0.019), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) than PSR. Three and 13 patients developed new symptoms in LVMR and PSR, respectively. The predictors for prolapse recurrence were LVMR (associated with 93% risk reduction of recurrence, OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.03-0.347, p = 0.001), symptom duration (prolonged duration was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, OR 1.131, 95% CI 1.036-1.236, p = 0.006), and length of prolapse (increased length was associated with a high recurrence risk (OR = 1.407, 95% CI = 1.197-1.655, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.

Anatomic and functional results of ventral biological mesh rectopexy for posterior pelvic floor disorders

INTRODUCTION

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is the gold standard for rectal prolapse surgery, but the type of mesh reinforcement is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the anatomic and functional results of a single center cohort of patients receiving ventral rectopexy with biological mesh compared to a reference group who had implantation of synthetic mesh. We also assessed the predictive factors for recurrence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy patients (2015-2021) were included in the biological mesh group and were compared to a reference group of 345 patients operated on with a synthetic mesh (2004-2017).

RESULTS

In the biological mesh group, the mean age of patients was 65 years (53-72). The main disorders of the posterior pelvic floor were rectal prolapse (30 cases) or rectocele (37 cases). Two patients had solitary rectal ulcer syndrome and one had internal prolapse. VMR was performed by a laparoscopic approach with robotic assistance in 93%. After a median follow-up of 12 (4.5-23) months, the anatomic recurrence rate was 10%. The median satisfaction score assessed in a telephone interview by a semi-quantitative scale from 0 to 10 was 7. Compared to the synthetic group, neither the morbidity rate (Dindo>2) (0.6% synthetic versus 1.4% biological mesh), nor the recurrence rate (12% synthetic versus 10% biological (ns) with an average interval of 13.5 versus 14 months, respectively) were statistically significantly different.

CONCLUSION

VMR with biological mesh represents an alternative to synthetic mesh. Despite its resorbable nature, biological mesh does not seem to increase the risk of recurrence and offers satisfying functional results after a medium term follow-up.

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.

Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy Versus Stapled Transanal Rectal Resection for Treatment of Obstructed Defecation in the Elderly: Long-term Results of a Prospective Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Obstructed defecation is a common complaint in coloproctology. Many anal, abdominal, and laparoscopic procedures are adopted to correct the underlying condition.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare long-term functional outcome, recurrence rate, and quality of life between laparoscopic ventral rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection in the treatment of obstructed defecation.

DESIGN

This was a prospective randomized study.

SETTING

This study was performed at academic medical centers.

PATIENTS

Patients were included if they had obstructed defecation attributed to pelvic structural abnormalities that did not to respond to conservative measures. Exclusion criteria included nonrelaxing puborectalis, previous abdominal surgery, other anal pathology, and pudendal neuropathy.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly allocated to either laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (group 1) or stapled transanal rectal resection (group 2).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were improvement of modified obstructed defecation score and recurrences after ≥3 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, continence status using Wexner incontinence score, and quality of life using Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

The study included 112 patients (56 in each arm). ASA score II was reported in 32 patients (18 in group 1 and 14 in group 2; p = 0.12), whereas 3 patients in each group had ASA score III. Minor postoperative complications were seen in 11 patients (20%) of group 1 and 14 patients of group 2 (25%; p = 0.65). During follow-up, 3 patients had fecal urgency after stapled transanal rectal resection but no sexual dysfunction in either procedure. After 6 months, modified obstructed defecation score improvement >50% was reported in 73% versus 82% in groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.36). After a mean follow-up of 41 months, recurrences of symptoms were reported in 7% in group 1 versus 24% in group 2 (p = 0.04). Six months postoperation, perineal descent improved >50% in defecogram in 80% of group 1 versus no improvement in group 2. Quality of life significantly improved in both groups after 6 months; however a significant long-term drop (>36 months) was seen only in group 2.

LIMITATIONS

Possible limitations of this study are the presence of a single operator and the absence of blindness of the technique for both patient and assessor.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients even with comorbidities, both laparoscopic ventral rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection are safe and can improve function of the anorectum in patients with obstructed defecation attributed to structural abnormalities. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy has better long-term functional outcome, less complications, and less recurrences compared with stapled transanal rectal resection. Perineal descent only improves after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Stapled transanal rectal resection was shown not to be the first choice in elderly patients with obstructed defecation unless they had a medical contraindication to laparoscopic procedures. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A788.

Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations: Results II: Hitching procedures for the rectum (rectal suspension)

AIM

To assess the outcomes of rectal suspension procedures (forms of rectopexy) in adults with chronic constipation.

METHOD

Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCiTY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 1238 patients. All studies reported only on laparoscopic approaches. Length of procedures ranged between 1.5 to 3.5 h, and length of stay between 4 to 5 days. Data on harms were inconsistently reported and heterogeneous, making estimates of harm tentative and imprecise. Morbidity rates ranged between 5-15%, with mesh complications accounting for 0.5% of patients overall. No mortality was reported after any procedures in a total of 1044 patients. Although inconsistently reported, good or satisfactory outcome occurred in 83% (74-91%) of patients; 86% (20-97%) of patients reported improvements in constipation after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). About 2-7% of patients developed anatomical recurrence. Patient selection was inconsistently documented. As most common indication, high grade rectal intussusception was corrected in 80-100% of cases after robotic or LVMR. Healing of prolapse-associated solitary rectal ulcer syndrome occurred in around 80% of patients after LVMR.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supporting rectal suspension procedures is currently derived from poor quality studies. Methodologically robust trials are needed to inform future clinical decision making.

Risk Factors for Recurrence After Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy effectively treats posterior compartment prolapse. However, recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate factors contributing to recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy between June 2008 and June 2014. Patients presenting with full-thickness rectal prolapse were compared against the rest. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine predictors for recurrence. Operative findings of redo cases were evaluated.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted under the supervision of a single pelvic floor surgeon.

PATIENTS

A total of 231 patients with a median follow-up of 47 months were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinicopathological risk factors and technical failures contributing to recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall recurrence rate was 11.7% (n = 27). Twenty-five recurrences occurred in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse, of which 16 were full-thickness recurrences (14.2% (16/113)). Multivariate analyses showed predictors for recurrence to be prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (HR = 5.57 (95% CI, 1.13 - 27.42); p = 0.04) and the use of synthetic mesh as compared with biologic grafts (HR = 4.24 (95% CI, 1.27-14.20); p = 0.02). Age >70 years and poorer preoperative continence were also associated with recurrence on univariate analysis. Technical failures contributing to recurrence included mesh detachment from the sacral promontory and inadequate midrectal mesh fixation.

LIMITATIONS

Modifications to the operative technique were made throughout the study period. A postoperative defecating proctogram was not routinely performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is multifactorial, and risk factors are both clinical and technical. The use of biologic grafts was associated with lower recurrence as compared with synthetic mesh. Patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse who are elderly, have poorer baseline continence, and have prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency are at increased risk of recurrence.

Short term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse

Objective:

To find out the short term outcomes of effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

Methods:

It was a descriptive case series study of 31 consecutive patients of rectal prolapse in Colorectal division of Ward 2, Department of General surgery, Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Center, Karachi, from November 2009 to November 2015. These patients were admitted through outpatient department with complains of something coming out of anus, constipation and per rectal bleeding. All patients were clinically examined and baseline investigations were done. All patients underwent laparoscopic repair with ventral mesh placement on rectum.

Results:

Among 31 patients, mean age was 45 years range (20 - 72). While females were 14(45%) and males 17(55%). We observed variety of presentations, including solitary rectal ulcers (n=4) and rectocele (n=3) but full thickness rectal prolapse was predominant(n=24). All patients had laparoscopic repair with mesh placement. Average hospital stay was three days. Out of 31 patients, there was one (3.2%) recurrence. Port site minor infection in 3(9.7%) patients, while conversion to open approach was done in two (6.4%), postoperative ileus observed in two (6.4%) patients. one(3.2%) patient developed intractable back pain and mesh was removed six weeks after the operation. one(4.8%) patient complained of abdominal pain off and on postoperatively. No patient developed denovo or worsening constipation while constipation was improved in 21 patients (67%). Sexual dysfunction such as dysperunia in females and impotence in males was not detected in follow up.

Conclusions:

This study provides the limited evidence that nerve sparing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is safe and effective treatment of external and symptomatic internal rectal prolapse. It has better cosmetic and functional outcome as advantages of minimal access and comparable recurrence rate.

The role of synthetic and biologic materials in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is a significant medical problem that poses a diagnostic and management dilemma. These diseases cause serious morbidity in those affected and treatment is sought for relief of pelvic pain, rectal bleeding, chronic constipation, obstructed defecation, and fecal incontinence. Numerous procedures have been proposed to treat these conditions; however, the search continues as colorectal surgeons attempt to find the procedure that would optimally treat these conditions. The use of prosthetics in the repair of pelvic organ prolapse has become prevalent as the benefits of their use are realized. While advances in biologic mesh and new surgical techniques promise improved functional outcomes with decreased complication rates without de novo symptoms, the debate concerning the best prosthetic material, synthetic or biologic, remains controversial. Furthermore, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy has emerged as a procedure that could potentially fill this role and is rapidly becoming the procedure of choice for the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.