Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: Functional Outcomes after Surgery

Comparative Outcomes of Transabdominal and Transperineal Approaches for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse Repair: A Fourteen-Year Retrospective Study

Background

The choice between transabdominal and transperineal approaches for full-thickness rectal prolapse repair remains controversial. This study compared the outcomes of these two approaches over a 14-year period in a real-world setting.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Thailand and included data from surgeries performed between January 2010 and December 2023. All patients who underwent surgical repair were included, except those with rectal prolapse secondary to colorectal cancer or those who did not receive surgical treatment. Surgical approaches were categorized into transperineal and transabdominal repairs. Outcomes (recurrence, morbidity, fecal incontinence, and constipation) were compared using inverse probability treatment weighting of propensity scores.

Results

A total of 58 patients were included, with 33 undergoing transperineal and 25 transabdominal repairs. Thirty-day postoperative complications and recurrence rates were comparable between the two approaches, with a nonsignificant trend favoring the transabdominal approach (30-day postoperative complication and recurrence risk ratios (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.67 (0.06, 7.65) and 0.62 (0.11, 3.53), respectively). Fecal incontinence and constipation rates were also comparable. However, among the 34 patients with at least a 1-year follow-up, the transabdominal approach showed a nonsignificant trend toward higher constipation and lower fecal incontinence (constipation and fecal incontinence risk ratios (95% CI): 2.24 (0.61, 8.19) and 0.50 (0.16, 1.60), respectively).

Conclusions

From our 14 years of experience, transperineal and transabdominal approaches for rectal prolapse repair have had comparable outcomes. The choice of approach should be based on patient conditions, surgeon expertise, and thorough discussion with all involved.

Mesh-associated complications in minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ventral mesh rectopexy (laparoscopic and robotic) is a common and well established treatment of rectal prolapse. Although described as safe and effective, complications, especially mesh-associated ones are often mentioned. Additionally, there is no consensus regarding the mesh type and fixation method as well as the materials used for this purpose. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the total amount of complications and of those the mesh-associated ones.

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register were screened for complications in general and in detail regarding the mesh(es) and a systematic review was performed.

RESULTS

Following qualitative evaluation, 40 studies were identified for further investigation. Across 6269 patients, complications were found in 9.2% (622 patients). Mesh-related complications were described in 1.4% (88 patients) of which 64.8% were erosions, 11.4% fistulas and 13.6% mesh releases. The complication rate according to the different materials were low with 1% in biological and synthetic meshes and 1.8% in not further described or mixed mesh type. Non-absorbable material to fixate the mesh was most frequently used to fixate the mesh.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is a safe operation with a low-complication rate, regardless of mesh type.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The contemporary literature provides conflicting evidence regarding the precedence of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy over laparoscopic suture rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of mesh and suture rectopexy to improve the surgical management of complete rectal prolapse. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to extract studies based on mesh versus suture rectopexy and published from 2001 to 2023. The articles of interest were obtained from PubMed Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Journal Storage (JSTOR), Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes included rectal prolapse recurrence, constipation improvement, and operative time. The secondary endpoints included the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay duration, mortality, overall postoperative complications, and surgical site infection. A statistically significant low recurrence of rectal prolapse (odds ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.80; p=0.009) and longer mean operative duration (mean difference: 27.05, 95% CI 18.86-35.24; p<0.00001) were observed in patients with mesh rectopexy versus suture rectopexy. Both study groups, however, had no significant differences in constipation improvement and all secondary endpoints (all p>0.05). The laparoscopic mesh rectopexy was associated with a low postoperative rectal prolapse recurrence and a longer operative duration compared to laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Prospective randomized controlled trials should further evaluate mesh and suture rectopexy approaches for postoperative outcomes to inform the surgical management of complete rectal prolapse.

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The primary objective is to identify determinants of dissatisfaction after surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse ± rectal prolapse, using laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or sacrocolpopexy (LSC) ± ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The secondary objective is the evaluation of complications and objective/subjective recurrence rates.

METHODS

The study performed was a single-surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data. LSH/LSC ± VMR were performed between July 2005 and September 2022. Primary investigated outcome was patients' satisfaction, assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score and the bother visual analog scale (VAS) obtained postoperatively (at a 1-month interval and on a 6-month/yearly basis thereafter). We looked for a correlation between the level of satisfaction (as reflected by the VAS) and potential determinants.

RESULTS

There were 355 patients with a mean age of 62 ±12 years. Nearly all the patients (94.3%) had a stage 3 or 4 prolapse according to the POP-Q classification. The mean postoperative bother VAS was 1.8, with only 12.7% of patients reporting a bother VAS score ≥ 3/10, indicating a dissatisfaction. PGI-I showed improvement in the vast majority of patients (96.4% scoring 1 to 3). Patients with anal incontinence preoperatively scored higher on the bother VAS postoperatively (r=0.175, p < 0.05). The use of a posterior arm mesh (for posterior vaginal prolapse) correlated with better satisfaction overall (r= -0.178, p = 0.001), whereas the performance of VMR was associated with a bothering sensation (r = 0.232, p < 0.001). A regression analysis confirmed the impact of posterior mesh and VMR on satisfaction levels, with odds of dissatisfaction being 2.18 higher when VMR was combined with LSH/LSC.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior mesh use improves patient satisfaction when the posterior compartment is affected. In patients with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse, combining VMR with anterior LSC/LSH appears to negatively impact patients' satisfaction. Preoperative anal incontinence was demonstrated to be a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Suture vs Mesh Rectopexy for Complete Rectal Prolapse

Objective To compare outcomes of laparoscopic suture and laparoscopic mesh rectopexy for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse in adults. Materials and methods This study was conducted between December 2020 to December 2022, involving 75 patients (Group A: 34; Group B: 41). Inclusion criteria encompassed confirmed complete rectal prolapse. Preoperative measures included comprehensive assessments, mechanical bowel cleansing, prophylactic antibiotics, and rectal irrigation. Surgical techniques involved laparoscopic suture rectopexy for Group A and laparoscopic mesh rectopexy for Group B. Postoperative care and follow-up evaluations were conducted. Results Group A demonstrated advantages in terms of shorter operative times, quicker bowel activity resumption, and reduced hospital stays. Intraoperative bleeding was absent in Group A, while wound-related complications were higher in Group B. Recurrence rates were lower in Group A (2.9%) compared to Group B (9.8%). Both groups exhibited improvements in incontinence grades postoperatively. Constipation increased in both groups. Conclusion Both techniques are effective in treating complete rectal prolapse, each with its advantages and considerations. Group A showed potential benefits in terms of operative efficiency and fewer complications, albeit with a potential for increased recurrence. The study emphasizes the need for individualized patient care, considering factors such as operative characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and patient preferences.

A quantitative study to explore functional outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Rectal prolapse is a life-altering problem and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is emerging as the surgical intervention of choice. However, the literature is ambiguous on its effect on bowel function and sparse as regards bladder and sexual function. This study assesses short-term functional outcomes following LVMR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This quantitative retrospective study with a pretest-post-test design included 130 adults who had undergone LVMR from October 2010 to December 2018 in a tertiary centre. Analysis with paired-samples t-test and Wilcoxon matched pairs test was done using SPSS (v26).

RESULTS

The median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 48-74 years); 123 (94.6%) were female. The median length of stay was two days (interquartile range, 1-2 days). A total of 104 (80%) sets of medical notes were reviewed. One patient had recurrence of rectal prolapse. Synthetic mesh was used in 24 patients (23.1%) and biological mesh in 80 (76.9%). One patient had extrusion of a synthetic mesh and required surgery; 31(23.8%) completed the Electronic Patient Assessment Questionnaire for Pelvic Floor. Overall, the improvement in bladder function was not statistically significant (p = 0.670). A statistically significant improvement was seen for all bowel symptoms (p = 0.002) excluding constipation (p = 0.295). Irritable bowel symptoms associated with rectal prolapse improved significantly following LVMR (p = 0.001). Vaginal prolapse (p < 0.0005), dyspareunia (p = 0.001) and bowel symptoms affecting sexual intercourse (p = 0.01) improved, but improvement in overall sexual function was not statistically significant (p = 0.081).

CONCLUSIONS

LVMR improves bowel function overall, although it can worsen constipation. It has the potential to improve sexual function but makes negligible difference to bladder function.

Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for rectal prolapse. Both synthetic and biologic mesh are used. No consensus exists on the preferred type of mesh material. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish an overview of the current literature on mesh-related complications and recurrence after VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh to aid evidence-based decision making in preferred mesh material.

METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane was performed (from inception until September 2020). Studies evaluating patients who underwent VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh were eligible. The MINORS score was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were eligible after qualitative assessment. Eleven studies reported on mesh-related complications including 4001 patients treated with synthetic mesh and 762 treated with biologic mesh. The incidence of mesh-related complications ranged between 0 and 2.4% after synthetic versus 0-0.7% after biologic VMR. Synthetic mesh studies showed a pooled incidence of mesh-related complications of 1.0% (95% CI 0.5-1.7). Data of biologic mesh studies could not be pooled. Twenty-nine studies reported on the risk of recurrence in 2371 synthetic mesh patients and 602 biologic mesh patients. The risk of recurrence varied between 1.1 and 18.8% for synthetic VMR versus 0-15.4% for biologic VMR. Cumulative incidence of recurrence was found to be 6.1% (95% CI 4.3-8.1) and 5.8% (95% CI 2.9-9.6), respectively. The clinical and statistical heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSIONS

No definitive conclusions on preferred mesh type can be made due to the quality of the included studies with high heterogeneity amongst them.

Mesh safety in pelvic surgery: Our experience and outcome of biological mesh used in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) continues to be a popular treatment option for rectal prolapse, obstructive defecation/faecal incontinence and rectoceles. In recent years there have been concerns regarding the safety of mesh placements in the pelvis.

AIM

To assess the safety of the mesh and the outcome of the procedure.

METHODS

Eighty-six patients underwent LVMR with Permacol (Biological) mesh from 2012 to 2018 at University Hospital Wishaw. Forty were treated for obstructive defecation secondary to prolapse, rectocele or internal rectal intussusception, 38 for mixed symptoms obstructive defecation and incontinence, 5 for pain and bleeding secondary to full thickness prolapse and 3 with symptoms of incontinence. Questionnaires for the calculation of Wexner scores for constipation and incontinence were completed by the patients who were followed up in the clinic 12 wk after surgery and again in 6-12 mo. The average review of their notes was 18.3 ± 4.2 mo.

RESULTS

The median Wexner scores for constipation pre-operatively and post-operatively were 14.5 [Interquartile range (IQR): 10.5-18.5] and 3 (IQR: 1-6), respectively, while the median Wexner score for faecal incontinence was 11 (IQR: 7-15) and 2 (IQR: 0-5), respectively (P < 0.01). There were 4 (4.6%) recurrences, 2 cases that presented with erosion of a suture through the rectum and one with diskitis. No mesh complications or mortalities were recorded.

CONCLUSION

LVMR using a Permacol mesh is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of obstructive defecation/faecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, rectoceles and internal rectal prolapse/intussusception.

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy significantly affects preexisting urinary symptoms in female patients

PURPOSE

It has previously been noted that following rectopexy, some patients report changes in urinary function. So far, not much is known about the extent of such changes. This study assesses the effects of laparoscopic rectopexy on urinary symptoms.

METHODS

Prospective observational study with 100 consecutive female patients indicated for laparoscopic resection rectopexy. Stated urinary symptoms, pre- and postoperative "International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire" (ICIQ), supplemented by a "quality of life " (QoL) visual analogue scale, and residual urine measurements (RUM) were compared and correlated.

RESULTS

Postoperative QoL was significantly improved, irrespective of preexisting urinary symptoms. Twenty-four (24%) patients noticed improved urinary function. This corresponded with 42% of 45 patients who had positive preoperative ICIQ scores indicating preexisting urinary symptoms. Conversely, 14 (14%) patients noticed a postoperative increase of urinary complaints. The stated symptom change was only in part reflected by changes of the ICIQ scoring. Comparing ICIQ, 19 (19%) patients scored "better" postoperatively against 8% scoring worse; 5 of the 8 patients experienced "de novo" symptoms. The improved postoperative ICIQ scoring was highly significant. RUM did not sufficiently correlate to symptoms/ICIQ for any meaningful conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy had predominantly beneficial and to a lesser extent detrimental effects on urinary symptoms. Effects were highly significant; they were mainly noted in patients with preexisting urinary complaints. So far, it is not possible to predict such effects on an individual basis. It appears likely that similar effects may be found for most of the alternative operative procedures for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Without more factual knowledge and awareness about the extent of potential "collateral" effects of pelvic floor repair procedures, expert guidance of patients appears limited.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy (LMR) and laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) in patients with rectal prolapse.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits. Recurrence, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), surgical site infections, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome measures.

RESULTS

We identified 5 comparative studies reporting a total of 307 patients evaluating outcomes of LMR (n=160) or LPSR (n=147) in patients with rectal prolapse. LMR was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.28, P=0.009) but longer procedure time (MD: 23.93, P<0.0001) compared to LPSR. However, there was no significant difference in CCIS (MD: -1.02, P=0.50), CCCS (MD: -1.54, P=0.47), surgical site infection (OR: 1.48, P=0.71), and length of hospital stay (MD: -1.54, P=0.47) between two groups. No mesh erosion was reported in any of the included studies at maximum follow-up point. Sub-group analyses with respect to ventral mesh rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy, randomised studies, and adult patients were consistent with the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LMR seems to be associated with lower recurrence but longer procedure time compared to LPSR. Although no mesh-related complications have been reported by the included studies, no definitive conclusions can be made considering that the included studies were inadequately powered for such outcome. Future high-quality randomised studies with adequate sample size are required.

Barium Defaecating Proctography: Experience from a Tertiary Referral Center

Objective Pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is a major health care problem predominately affecting the elderly female. It impairs quality of life and patients increasingly expect a solution. Barium defaecating proctography (BDP) is frequently used in the assessment of patients with PFD. The aim of this study was to present our findings from BDP and to look at the proportion of patients who went on to have surgery following their investigations.

Methods All patients who underwent BDP in a tertiary referral center were identified retrospectively from the computerized radiology information system. Demographic data and radiologic findings were extracted. Data regarding those who had surgery were retrieved from the anonymized patient registry.

Results A total of 671 patients had a BDP during the study period. The main symptoms investigated were obstructed defecation or chronic constipation (64%). Complete barium evacuation was observed in 70% of the patients, while 17% were noted to have incomplete and 13% no evacuation. A large rectocele (>5 cm) was noted in 38% while nearly 5% had frank prolapse. There was no significant association between a rectocele and any of the presenting symptoms. Seventy-eight (12%) patients went on to have operation, of which 17 (22%) had multiple procedures. Three patients ended up with a permanent stoma.

Conclusion BDP contributes to decision making in patients with PFD. However, results need to be interpreted with caution and in conjunction with other tests and clinical examination to maintain a low rate of operation and reduce the risk of adverse outcomes for these patients.

Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for rectal prolapse has been implemented to reduce postoperative bowel symptoms. The preoperative-to-postoperative change in a double-blinded, randomized study comparing it to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) found no significant difference between the two procedures after one year. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term functional outcomes.

METHODS

From November 2006-January 2014, 75 patients were randomized to LVMR (n = 37) or LPSR (n = 38). In March 2017, questionnaires containing constipation symptom score (PAC-SYM), quality of life score (PAC-QoL), obstructed defecation score (ODS), Cleveland clinic constipation and incontinence scores (CCCS, CCIS) were mailed to all the patients included in the RCT. Prolapse recurrences and mesh complications were recorded.

FINDING

Sixty-nine patients were available for long-term follow-up. Questionnaires were completed by 64 patients (94.4%). The median follow-up was 6.1 years. The total PAC-QoL was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.26 (0.14-0.83) compared to the LPSR group 0.93(0.32-1.61)(P = 0.008). The total PAC-SYM was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.5 (0.21-0.87) compared to the LPSR group 1.0 (0.5-1.5)(P = 0.031). Except for CCIS, the ODS and the CCCS significantly favored the LVMR group at six years (P = 0.011 & 0.017). Only three(8.82%) patients in the LVMR group developed recurrence compared to seven(23.33%) in the LPSR group (P = 0.111).

INTERPRETATION

The long-term functional outcome after LVMR is superior to that after LPSR. Larger multicenter studies are warranted.

FUNDING

None.

Medium-term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using polivinylidene fluoride as compared to a hybrid polyglecaprone and polypropylene mesh: A matched control study

AIM

To compare 2-year outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) either with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or hybrid polypropylene containing a resorbable polyglecaprone (PP+ PG) mesh.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective audit on 105 consecutive patients undergoing LSCP a with PVDF-mesh (DynaMesh, FEG Textiltechniken), matched by prolapse stage and cervicopexy or vault suspension to 105 controls undergoing LSCP with a hybrid PP + PG-mesh (Ultrapro, Ethicon). Patients are part of an ongoing prospective study. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGIC), the coprimary variable was failure rate at the vault (≤1 cm). Other outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications within 3 months categorized by the Clavien-Dindo classification, reinterventions, graft-related complications (GRCs) and functional outcomes. All assessments were performed by an independent assessor. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) number and percent as appropriate, the Mann-Whitney U, χ² , or Fisher exact were used for comparison.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction in the PVDF group, as measured with the PGIC, was high (90.9% PGIC, ≥4) as well as was the anatomical success (97.3%) at a follow-up of 26 months. These outcomes were comparable to those of PP + PG-patients (84.8% PGIC, ≥4; 94.9% anatomical success). There were five patients (2.4%) with Dindo-III or higher complications and three patients had GRCs (1.5%), without differences between mesh type. Level-II posterior defects (Bp ≥ -1) were less likely in PVDF patients (34.1% vs 50% for PP + PG-patients; P = .003). Women in the PVDF group also were less bothered by prolapse (7.5% vs 26.4%; P = .001), yet they complained more of constipation (15.0% vs 9.0%; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in patient satisfaction and anatomical outcomes after LSCP either with PVDF or PP + PG mesh.