Laparoscopic anterior rectopexy to the promontory for full-thickness rectal prolapse in 175 consecutive patients: short- and long-term follow-up

Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: the PEXITY study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) has gained increasing acceptance for the treatment of patients with a full-thickness rectal prolapse (RP), but literature on follow-up of at least 10 years is scarce. We studied recurrence rate, long-term functional results and quality of life in patients who had LVR for RP more than 12 years ago.

METHOD

The study population consisted of patients who could be contacted among the 175 who had undergone LVR for RP and whose short- and medium-term outcomes were published in 2012. We studied the long-term recurrence rate (Kaplan-Meier), functional outcome (Wexner and ODS scores), quality of life (EuroQol) and satisfaction of the patient through clinical examination(s), specific scores and questionnaires.

RESULTS

Of the 175 patients, 14 patients had exclusion criteria, 57 had died, and 42 were lost to follow-up, leaving 62 patients for analysis. Seventeen patients presented with a recurrence (10.5%) at the 10-year follow-up. The only statistically significant risk factor for recurrence was recurrent RP (HR = 11.5 (2.54-52.2), P = 0.002). The median faecal incontinence score was 4 (0-10) and significantly worse in patients who had a recurrence [12 (7-13) vs 3 (0-9); P = 0.016]. The median obstructive defaecation score was 6 (3-12). The median quality of life score was 7 (6-8). Most patients who presented with a recurrence said they would undergo the operation again and recommended it, as would patients with no recurrence.

CONCLUSION

LVR for RP is a safe and efficient technique with sustainable long-term results that shows long-term efficacy at > 10 years after the operation.

Quality of Life, Functional Outcomes, and Recurrence After Resection Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse Repair

BACKGROUND

Resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy are widely accepted surgical options for the treatment of rectal prolapse; however, reports on long-term recurrence rates and functional outcomes are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We compared quality of life, long-term functional outcomes, and prolapse recurrence after resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy.

DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively collected rectal prolapse surgery database.

SETTINGS

Patients who underwent resection rectopexy or ventral mesh rectopexy at our center between 2009 and 2016 were included.

PATIENTS

Two hundred twenty patients were included, of whom 208 (94%) were women; 85 (39%) underwent resection rectopexy and 135 (61%) ventral mesh rectopexy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prolapse recurrence.

RESULTS

The resection rectopexy group was younger (median 52 vs 60 years old, p = 0.02) and had more open procedures (20% vs 9%, p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 110 (interquartile range 94-146) months for resection rectopexy and 113 (87-137) months for ventral mesh rectopexy, recurrences occurred in 21 (26%) in the resection rectopexy and 50 (39%) in the ventral mesh rectopexy group ( p = 0.041). The median time to recurrence was 44 (18-80) months in the resection rectopexy group and 28.5 (11-52.5) months in the ventral mesh rectopexy group ( p = 0.14). There were no differences in the recurrence rate for primary prolapses in resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy. The recurrence rate for redo prolapses was higher in the ventral mesh rectopexy group at 63% at 10 years versus 25% in the resection rectopexy group ( p = 0.006). Functional outcomes were similar between the 2 groups.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective review, recall bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes after resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy were comparable. Ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with a higher prolapse recurrence rate after recurrent rectal prolapse repair. See Video Abstract .

CALIDAD DE VIDA, RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y RECURRENCIA DESPUS DE LA RECTOPEXIA POR RESECCIN VERSUS LA RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL CON MALLA PARA LA REPARACIN DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL

ANTECEDENTES:La rectopexia de resección y la rectopexia ventral con malla son opciones quirúrgicas ampliamente aceptadas para el tratamiento del prolapso rectal; sin embargo, faltan informes sobre las tasas de recurrencia a largo plazo y los resultados funcionales.OBJETIVO:Comparamos la calidad de vida, los resultados funcionales a largo plazo y la recurrencia del prolapso después de la rectopexia de resección versus la rectopexia ventral con malla.DISEÑO:Revisamos retrospectivamente nuestra base de datos de cirugía de prolapso rectal recopilada prospectivamente.ENTORNO CLÍNICO:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a rectopexia resección o rectopexia ventral con malla en nuestro centro entre 2009 y 2016.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron 220 pacientes, de los cuales 208 (94%) eran mujeres; 85 (39%) fueron sometidos a rectopexia de resección, 135 (61%) rectopexia ventral con malla.INTERVENCIONES:Ninguna.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Recurrencia del prolapso.RESULTADOS:El grupo de rectopexia de resección era más joven (mediana 52 vs 60 años, p = 0,02) y tenía más procedimientos abiertos (20% vs 9%, p < 0,001). Después de una mediana de seguimiento de 110 (RIC 94 - 146) meses para la rectopexia de resección y 113 (87 - 137) para la rectopexia ventral con malla, se produjeron recurrencias en 21 (26%) del grupo de rectopexia de resección y en 50 (39%) del grupo de rectopexia ventral con malla (p = 0,041). La mediana del tiempo hasta la recurrencia fue de 44 (18 - 80) meses en el grupo de rectopexia de resección y 28,5 (11 - 52,5) en el grupo de rectopexia ventral con malla (p = 0,14). No hubo diferencias en la tasa de recurrencia de prolapsos primarios en la rectopexia de resección versus la rectopexia con malla ventral. La tasa de recurrencia de prolapsos repetidos fue mayor en el grupo de rectopexia con malla ventral, 63% a los 10 años, versus 25% en el grupo de rectopexia con resección (p = 0,006). Los resultados funcionales fueron similares entre los dos grupos.LIMITACIONES:Revisión retrospectiva, sesgo.CONCLUSIÓN:La calidad de vida a largo plazo y los resultados funcionales después de la rectopexia de resección y la rectopexia ventral con malla fueron comparables. La rectopexia ventral con malla se asoció con una mayor tasa de recurrencia del prolapso después de la reparación del prolapso rectal recurrente. (Traducción-Ingrid Melo ).

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.

Could robotic-assisted surgery reduce mesh-related complications after ventral mesh rectopexy? Experience of a tertiary centre and systematic review of the literature

AIM

The development of robotic assistance has made dissection and suturing in the deep pelvis much easier. The augmented quality of the images and the articulation of the robotic arms have also enabled a more precise dissection. The aim of this study is to present the data on robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy procedures in a university hospital and examine the literature in terms of mesh erosion.

METHOD

The electronic databases Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane were searched. Studies from January 2004 until January 2023 in the English language were included. Studies which included fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were included. Mesh erosion rates following laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were measured.

RESULTS

Overall, the systematic review presents 5911 patients from 43 studies who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with 746 patients treated with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy from six studies and our centre. Mesh erosion was rare in both groups; however, the prevalence was greater in the laparoscopy group (0.90% vs. 0.27%).

CONCLUSION

The mesh erosion rates are very low with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy. For precise results, more studies and experience in robotic surgery are required.

Comparison of Safety and Efficacy between Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy and Delorme's Procedure for External Rectal Prolapse in Nonagenarians

Objectives

This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) in nonagenarian patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) compared to Delorme's procedure.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, including nonagenarian patients who underwent either LVR or Delorme's procedure, comparing outcomes such as morbidity, length of hospital stay (LOS), and recurrence rates.

Results

Between September 2009 and August 2023, 22 patients (median age 91, range 90-94 years) underwent LVR, while 12 patients (median age 91, range 90-96 years) received Delorme's procedure. Baseline characteristics, including sex ratio, parity, American Society of Anesthesiology grade, and Body Mass Index, did not significantly differ between the groups. LVR had a significantly longer operating time but lower blood loss than Delorme's procedure. Postoperative LOS was significantly shorter for LVR patients (median 1, range 1-3 days) compared to Delorme's procedure patients (median 2.5, range 1-13 days; P = 0.001). Notably, no significant morbidity occurred in the LVR group, while one case of delirium and another of solitary rectal ulcer syndrome were observed in the Delorme's procedure group. Recurrence rates were lower in the LVR group, with no recurrences during a median follow-up of 23 months (range 1-65 months), compared to one recurrence at 2 months during a median follow-up of 34 months (range 1-96 months) in the Delorme's procedure group.

Conclusions

LVR is a safe and effective surgical option for nonagenarian ERP patients, showing favorable outcomes in terms of morbidity, LOS, and recurrence rates compared to Delorme's procedure.

Complications of Mesh Sacrocolpopexy and Rectopexy: Imaging Review

Sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy are commonly used surgical options for treatment of patients with pelvic organ and rectal prolapse, respectively. These procedures involve surgical fixation of the vaginal vault or the rectum to the sacral promontory with mesh material and can be performed independently of each other or in a combined fashion and by using an open abdominal approach or laparoscopy with or without robotic assistance. Radiologists can be particularly helpful in cases where patients' surgical histories are unclear by identifying normal sacrocolpopexy or rectopexy mesh material and any associated complications. Acute complications such as bleeding or urinary tract injury or stricture are generally evaluated with CT. More chronic complications such as mesh extrusion or exposure with or without fistulization to surrounding structures are generally evaluated with MRI. Other complications can have a variable time of onset after surgery. Patients with suspected bowel obstruction are generally evaluated with CT. Those with suspected infection, abscess formation, and discitis or osteomyelitis may be evaluated with MRI, although CT evaluation may be appropriate in certain scenarios. The authors review the sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy surgical techniques, discuss appropriate imaging protocols for evaluation of patients with suspected complications, and illustrate the normal appearance and common complications of these procedures. ^© RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

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.

Predictive Factors for Recurrence of External Rectal Prolapse after Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy

Objectives:

This study aimed to evaluate factors that contribute to the recurrence of external rectal prolapse (ERP) following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR).

Methods:

All patients who underwent LVR using synthetic meshes between 2011 and 2018 were prospectively included. A standard questionnaire including the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) and Constipation Scoring System (CSS) was administered preoperatively and postoperatively. Defecography was performed 6 months postoperatively. Univariate and backward stepwise multivariate Cox analysis was performed to determine the prognostic factors of recurrence.

Results:

In total, 132 patients with a median follow-up of 46 months were included. The overall recurrence rate was 6.8% (n = 9), as confirmed by defecography at 6 months in six of the patients. None of the patients developed mesh erosion. FISI and CSS scores were significantly reduced at 3 months and remained significantly reduced for 3 years. Multivariate analyses revealed that the predictors of recurrence included male sex (hazards ratio, 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-43.0) and age >80 years (hazards ratio, 10.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-86.3). Eight patients with recurrence underwent surgery via Delorme's procedure (n = 7) and posterior rectopexy (n = 1). Two patients with new-onset rectoanal intussusception and one with uncorrected sigmoidocoele underwent repeat LVR.

Conclusions:

LVR is effective in treating ERP with low morbidity and low recurrence. Male patients and patients older than 80 years are at increased risk of recurrence. Hence, the LVR technique should be modified or coupled with other perineal procedures when treating ERP, especially in male patients.

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.

What is the recommended procedure for recurrent rectal prolapse? A retrospective cohort study in a single Japanese institution

Purpose

The choice of surgical procedure for rectal prolapse (RP) is challenging because of the high recurrence and morbidity rates. We aimed to clarify whether laparoscopic suture rectopexy (lap-rectopexy) is suitable for Japanese patients with recurrent RP.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 77 recurrent RP patients who had been treated on average 1.5 times between June 2008 and April 2016. Forty-one patients underwent lap-rectopexy and 36 underwent perineal procedures. We compared surgical outcomes and recurrence rate following surgery between the two groups. The multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors of recurrent RP.

Results

In patients’ characteristics, significant differences were observed in the type of anesthesia (p < 0.01) and length of recurrent RP (p = 0.030). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the lap-rectopexy group (p < 0.001). Blood loss, length of hospitalization, and postoperative complications were similar. The recurrence rate was significantly lower in the lap-rectopexy group (17.1% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.032). Multivariate analysis showed that only the laparoscopic approach was significantly associated with a low recurrence following surgery (odds ratio 0.273, 95% CI − 2.568 to − 0.032).

Conclusion

Lap-rectopexy is recommended for recurrent RP because its low recurrence rate and safety profile are similar to those of perineal procedures.

Suture rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for complete full-thickness rectal prolapse and intussusception: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR).

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on the recurrence rates of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) or intussusception (IS) after SR and VMR. Results were pooled and procedures compared; a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients with CRP and IS who underwent VMR using biological versus synthetic meshes. A meta-analysis of studies comparing SR and VMR was undertaken. The Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies score, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to assess the quality of studies.

Results

Twenty-two studies with 976 patients were included in the SR group and 31 studies with 1605 patients in the VMR group; among these studies, five were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall, in patients with CRP, the recurrence rate was 8.6 per cent after SR and 3.7 per cent after VMR (P < 0.001). However, in patients with IS treated using VMR, the recurrence rate was 9.7 per cent. Recurrence rates after VMR did not differ with use of biological or synthetic mesh in patients treated for CRP (4.1 versus 3.6 per cent; P = 0.789) and or IS (11.4 versus 11.0 per cent; P = 0.902). Results from the meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, and the difference in recurrence rates between SR and VMR groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.76).

Conclusion

Although the systematic review showed a higher recurrence rate after SR than VMR for treatment of CRP, this result was not confirmed by meta-analysis. Therefore, robust RCTs comparing SR and biological VMR are required.

Polyvinylidene Fluoride Mesh Use in Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy in Patients with Obstructive Defecation Syndrome for the First Time

BACKGROUND

Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) affects quality of life of patients to a great extent by disturbing defecation. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has gained much attention in the recent years. Common synthetic used meshes have a risk of erosion for adjacent pelvic organs leading to some complications. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of LVMR using polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh in patients with ODS for the first time.Methods and Materials: In this experimental study, patients with a history of ODS and associated signs and symptoms such as descending perineum, rectocele, enterocele, intussusception, rectal prolapse or a combined disorder were recruited. The patients underwent LVMR using a PVDF mesh. They were followed using the Constipation Scoring System (CSS) score. Participants were followed up for 12 months after surgery. Complications and CSS for each patient and its changes were the main outcomes of this study.

RESULTS

Of 156 patients, 155 had a 12-month complete follow-up. Thirty-nine (25.2%) were male and 116 (74.8%) female. Mean ± SD age of participants was 45.61 ± 14.02 years. The overall complication rate was 3.87%. No major mesh-related complications were recorded. Four cases (2.58%) of trocar site hernia were reported. Also, two cases (1.29%) of postoperative bleeding occurred. CSS before the operation and 1, 3, and 12 months after it were 11.04 ± 5.93, 7.98 ± 4.85, 5.46 ± 3.70 and 4.09 ± 2.98, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Synthetic meshes might cause severe erosion in pelvic organs. However, at least in short-term follow-up, PVDF mesh seems to be safe and effective in LVMR, with the advantage of being cheaper.

Chronic pelvic pain and rectal prolapse invite consideration of enterocele

AIM

Data on the pathogenesis and symptoms of enterocele are limited. The objectives of this study were to determine the clinical phenotype of patients with enterocele, to highlight the main functional and/or anatomical associations and to improve the accuracy of the preoperative assessment of pelvic floor disorders.

METHOD

A total of 588 patients who were referred to a tertiary unit for an anorectal complaint completed a self-administered questionnaire and underwent physical examination, anorectal manometry and defaecography. Using defaecography, enterocele was defined as a radiological hernia of the small bowel into an enlarged rectovaginal space. One hundred and thirty-five patients with enterocele were age- and gender-matched with 270 patients without enterocele. Factors associated with enterocele were assessed using univariate and multivariate analysis models.

RESULTS

Patients with enterocele were less frequently obese than patients without enterocele (8/135 vs 36/270; P = 0.02) and more frequently had a past history of pelvic surgery (51/135 vs 75/270; P = 0.04). They complained more frequently of pelvic pain on bearing down (29/135 vs 24/270; P = 0.003), anal procidentia (37/135 vs 46/270; P = 0.01) and more frequently had irritable bowel syndrome (83/135 vs 131/270; P = 0.01) and severe constipation according to the Kess score (104/135 vs 182/270; P = 0.04). Anorectal function was comparable between the two groups. Patients with enterocele had more frequent rectoceles and overt rectal prolapses than patients without enterocele.

CONCLUSIONS

Enterocele should be investigated in patients with chronic pelvic pain, overt rectal prolapse and/or a past history of pelvic surgery.

Usefulness of laparoscopic posterior rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Transabdominal rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse reportedly yields more definitive results than transperineal surgery. Recently, minimally invasive laparoscopic rectopexy has become a popular treatment option for patients with rectal prolapse. Herein, we describe our surgical procedure for correction of rectal prolapse. We further aimed to perform a comparative assessment between perioperative outcomes achieved with open and laparoscopic applications of this technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cohort study, 65 patients underwent posterior rectopexy (laparoscopic, 50; open, 15) between April 2008 and December 2015. The basic procedure consisted of posterior rectopexy using mesh fixation (modified Wells' method). We assessed and compared perioperative outcomes (duration of surgery and hospitalization, complication rates, blood-loss, degree of fecal incontinence) of laparoscopic and open rectopexy. Furthermore, pre- and post-operative urinary incontinence was measured (using pad test, questionnaire) and compared to determine the effects of the procedure on pelvic organ function. A p-value <0.05 indicated statistical significance.

RESULTS

The mean operative time of the laparoscopic and open procedures was 127 and 83.6 min, respectively. The amount of blood-loss was negligible and 77 (range, 18-200) g with the laparoscopic and open approaches, respectively. The mean duration of hospitalization was 4.2 and 7.2 days for the former and latter procedures, respectively (p < 0.05). Rectal prolapse and fecal incontinence (evaluated using Wexner's score) diminished in all patients. Urinary incontinence also decreased postoperatively. There were no recurrences of rectal prolapse.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic rectopexy can be safely performed in older patients to achieve early postoperative ambulation and significantly shorten the hospital-stay. It may therefore be considered an effective treatment for complete rectal prolapse and urinary dysfunction.

Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of the predictors for recurrence

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has proved effective in the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse. The present meta-analysis aimed to determine the predictive factors of recurrence of full-thickness external rectal prolapse after LVMR.

METHODS

An organized, systematic search of electronic databases including PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochran library was conducted in adherence to PRISMA guidelines. Studies that reported the outcome of LVMR in patients with full-thickness external rectal prolapse were included according to predefined criteria. A meta-regression analysis and sub-group meta-analyses were performed to recognize the patient and technical factors that were associated with higher recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies comprising 1242 patients of a median age of 60 years were included. The median operation time was 122.3 min. Conversion to open surgery was required in 22 (1.8%) patients. The weighted mean complication rate across the studies was 12.4% (95% CI 8.4-16.4) and the weighted mean rate of recurrence of full-thickness external rectal prolapse was 2.8% (95% CI 1.4-4.3). The median follow-up duration was 23 months. Male gender (SE = 0.018, p = 0.008) and length of the mesh (SE = - 0.007, p = 0.025) were significantly associated with full-thickness recurrence of rectal prolapse. The weighted mean rates of improvement in fecal incontinence and constipation after LVMR were 79.3% and 71%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LVMR is an effective and safe option in treatment of full-thickness external rectal prolapse with low recurrence and complication rates. Male patients and length of the mesh may potentially have a significant impact on recurrence of rectal prolapse after LVMR.

Altemeier's procedure for complete rectal prolapse; outcome and function in 43 consecutive female patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate morbidity, mortality, postoperative function and recurrences in patients treated by Altemeier's rectosigmoidectomy for complete rectal prolapse in a referral center for pelvic floor functional disorders.

METHODS

Peri-operative data on 43 consecutive female patients were reviewed. At follow-up any change in pelvic floor function and recurrences were determined. Thirty four patients were assessed at a median interval of 49 (2-135) months, six being deceased for reason not related to the prolapse and three lost to follow-up.

RESULTS

Post-operative complications at 30 days occurred in 18 patients (38%). Major complication occurred in only one patient that was pneumonia with lung failure. Major complications were not related to the ASA score, BMI or age [average age 76.4]. There was no post-operative mortality at 30 days. At long-term follow-up functional results demonstrate a statistically significant decrease in the Obstructive Defecation Syndrome (ODS) score, but no statistically significant changes in the Vaizey score, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-SF) score and the urinary retention score. ODS score decreased with respect to levatorplasty and the change was statistically significant instead of Vaizey score in which were not. At the same follow-up there were 12 (35%) cases of recurrence with an estimated risk at 48 months of 40%. There were no statistically significant differences between patients with and without recurrence regarding age (p = 0.188), BMI (p = 0.864), ASA score (p = 0.433), previously repaired prolapse (p = 0.398), previous hysterectomy (p = 0.705), length of resected bowel (p = 0.126), and levatorplasty (p = 0.304). Patient satisfaction showed a mean of 8.8 and 6.4 respectively in patients without and with recurrences (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Altemeier's procedure had in our series low complications rate and no mortality. It offered improved evacuation in constipated patients while didn't improve fecal and urinary continence. Recurrence of prolapse was 40% at four years.

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.

Early experience with ambulatory robotic ventral rectopexy

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Ventral rectopexy can be performed robotically with only limited trauma for the patient, making its performance in an ambulatory setting potentially interesting. The aim of this study is to report our preliminary experience with ambulatory robotic ventral rectopexy in consecutive patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten consecutive patients underwent robotic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse (n=8) or symptomatic enterocele (n=2) between February 2014 and April 2015. Patients were selected for outpatient treatment based on criteria of patient motivation, favorable social conditions, and satisfactory general condition. Patient characteristics, technical results and cost were reported.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was 94minutes (range: 78-150). The average operating room occupancy time was 254minutes (222-339). There were no operative complications, conversion to laparotomy, or postoperative complication. The average duration of hospital stay was 11 (8-32) hours. Two patients required hospitalization: one for persistent pain and the other for urinary retention. The average maximum pain score recorded on postoperative day 1 was 2/10 on a visual analog scale (range: 0-5/10). Estimated average cost (excluding amortization of the purchase of the robot) was €9088 per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory management of robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception using a biological mesh

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) is a nerve-sparing technique for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Concerns about the use of synthetic meshes in the pelvis and the associated risk of erosion have led to the recent use of biological meshes in some colorectal units. This retrospective study aims to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing LVR using a noncross-linked nondermal biological mesh.

METHOD

The medical notes of all patients who underwent LVR between 1 December 2011 and 31 May 2014 were reviewed. The rate of obstructed defaecation before surgery was retrospectively determined from medical records using the Rome III criteria. The rates of obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence following surgery were determined using a self-reported questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients had LVR between 1 December 2011 and 31 May 2014. Their mean age was 57.3 ± 2.5 years and the mean follow-up was 23 ± 1 months. There were seven (13.7%) postoperative complications. In total, 45 (88%) patients completed the functional outcome questionnaires. Before surgery, 33 (73.3%) patients complained of symptoms of obstructed defaecation. At the end of follow-up, 22 (48.8%, P = 0.001) patients continued to have some symptoms of obstructed defaecation. Before surgery, 12 (26.7%) patients complained of faecal incontinence. At the end of follow-up, only three (6.7%, P = 0.004) patients reported faecal incontinence. At the end of follow-up, recurrence of symptoms had occurred in six (13.3%) patients.

CONCLUSION

LVR using a biological mesh is safe and results in significant reduction in symptoms associated with external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception.

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 Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rectal prolapse is often repaired laparoscopically, frequently with the use of reinforcement material. Both synthetic and biologically derived materials reduce recurrence rate compared to primary suture repair. Synthetic mesh introduces potential complications such as mesh erosion, fibrosis, and infection. Urinary bladder matrix (UBM) represents a biologically derived material for reinforcement of rectal prolapse repair with the potential to improve durability without risks of synthetic materials. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness, durability, and functional result of laparoscopic rectopexy using urinary bladder matrix xenograft reinforcement at three years follow up.

METHODS

The 20 cases presented describe rectal prolapse repair by means of laparoscopic rectopexy with presacral UBM reinforcement. Patients were followed up for an average of 3 years and assessed with interviews, physical examination, manometry, and the fecal incontinence severity index (FISI).

RESULTS

Each repair was completed laparoscopically. UBM exhibited favorable handling characteristics when sutured to the sacrum and the lateral rectal walls. One patient underwent laparoscopic drainage of a postoperative abscess; no other complications occurred. In 3 years of follow-up, there have been no full-thickness recurrences, erosions, reoperations, or long-term complications. Two patients exhibited a small degree of mucosal prolapse on follow-up physical examination that did not require surgery. Three-year FISI scores averaged 8 (range, 0-33 of a possible 61), indicating low fecal incontinence symptomatology. Follow-up anorectal manometry was performed in 9 patients, showing mixed results.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons may safely use laparoscopic rectopexy with UBM reinforcement for repair of rectal prolapses. In this series, repairs with UBM grafts have been durable at 3-year follow-up and may be an alternative to synthetic mesh reinforcement of rectal prolapse repairs. Future studies may compare the advantages and cost-effectiveness of reinforcement materials for rectal prolapse repair.

Laparoscopic Vaginal Suspension and Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic procedures for the treatment of patients with a rectal prolapse have gained increasing worldwide acceptance because they have lower recurrence and better functional outcome than perineal procedures. Nevertheless, ideal surgical methods are still not available. We propose a new surgical technique, laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy, for correcting a full-thickness rectal prolapse and/or middle-compartment prolapse. This study assessed the short-term outcomes for patients who underwent laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy.

METHODS

Between April 2014 and April 2016, 69 female patients underwent laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy to correct a rectal prolapse. Demographics, medical histories, and surgical and follow-up details were collected from their medical records. In addition to the clinical outcome, we repeated defecation proctography and a questionnaire regarding functional results three months after surgery.

RESULTS

No major morbidities or no mortalities occurred. The defecation proctography confirmed excellent anatomical result in all cases. Of 7 patients with combined middle-compartment prolapses, we observed good anatomical correction. During follow-up, full-thickness recurrence occurred in one patient. Preoperative fecal incontinence was improved significantly at 3 months (mean Wexner score: 12.35 vs. 7.71; mean FISI: 33.29 vs. 21.07; P < 0.001). Analysis of responses to the fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQOL) questionnaire showed overall improvement at 3 months compared to the preoperative baseline (mean pre- and postoperative FIQOL scores: 12.11 vs. 14.39; P < 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy is a new combined procedure for the treatment of patients with rectal prolapses. It has excellent functional outcomes and minimal morbidity and can correct and prevent middlecompartment prolapses.

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

This review reports the incidence of mesh-related erosion after ventral mesh rectopexy to determine whether any difference exists in the erosion rate between synthetic and biological mesh.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE and the Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2004 and 2015. The search strategy capture terms were laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy, robotic ventral rectopexy, and robotic anterior rectopexy.

RESULTS

Eight studies (3,956 patients) were included in this review. Of those patients, 3,517 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) using synthetic mesh and 439 using biological mesh. Sixty-six erosions were observed with synthetic mesh (26 rectal, 32 vaginal, 8 recto-vaginal fistulae) and one (perineal erosion) with biological mesh. The synthetic and the biological mesh-related erosion rates were 1.87% and 0.22%, respectively. The time between rectopexy and diagnosis of mesh erosion ranged from 1.7 to 124 months. No mesh-related mortalities were reported.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of mesh-related erosion after LVR is low and is more common after the placement of synthetic mesh. The use of biological mesh for LVR seems to be a safer option; however, large, multicenter, randomized, control trials with long follow-ups are required if a definitive answer is to be obtained.

[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.

Incidence and surgical treatment of synthetic mesh-related infectious complications after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic-related infection and erosion occurring after a laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) are rare complications, and their importance is often underestimated. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence rate and surgical management of these complications in LVR patients with polyester (PE) or polypropylene (PP) prostheses.

METHODS

From January 2004 to June 2012, 149 patients underwent LVR with PE and 176 underwent LVR with PP. Surgical management and rate of infectious and erosive prosthesis-related complications, depending on the type of prosthesis, were described and compared. Functional results after complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Five patients from the PE prosthesis group (3.3 %), compared with two patients from the PP prosthesis group (1.1 %), experienced prosthesis-related infection or erosion (p = 0.16). The rate of erosion alone was 3.3 % in patients with a PE prosthesis, and 0.55 % in patients with a PP prosthesis (p = 0.06). The average time until clinical diagnosis of a prosthesis-related complication was identical for both groups: 31 months (range 3-62 months). All patients underwent surgical removal of the prosthesis: For the five patients from the PE group, complete removal was performed by laparoscopy associated with a transanal procedure. For the two patients in the PP mesh group, laparoscopy was ineffective in removing the mesh which was partially removed through a subsequent transanal procedure. None of the patients had a protective stoma, and in all patients the complication had resolved 12 months after removal. Only one patient had worsening functional symptoms (fecal incontinence) after prosthesis removal.

CONCLUSIONS

When a prosthesis-related infection or erosion occurs, treatment consists in the surgical removal of the prosthesis by laparoscopy/and/or a transanal procedure. Functional symptoms do not routinely recur after prosthesis removal.

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Ventral rectopexy to the promontory has become one of the most strongly advocated surgical treatments for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and deep enterocele. Despite its challenges, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with or without robotic assistance for selected patients can be performed with relatively minimal patient trauma thus creating the potential for same-day discharge. The aim of this prospective case-controlled study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and cost of day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with routine day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

Between February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2015, 20 consecutive patients underwent day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse or deep enterocele at Michallon University Hospital, Grenoble. Patients were selected for day case surgery on the basis of motivation, favorable social circumstances, and general fitness. One out of every two patients underwent the robotic procedure (n = 10). Demographics, technical results, and costs were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Patients from both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and technical results. Patients operated on with the robot had significantly less pain (p = 0.045). Robotic rectopexy was associated with longer median operative time (94 vs 52.5 min, p < 0.001) and higher costs (9088 vs 3729 euros per procedure, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic rectopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

Day case robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe, but results in longer operative time and higher costs than classical laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse and enterocele.

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.

[Complications after rectal prolapse surgery]

Major complications only rarely occur after rectal prolapse surgery. Generally, the spectrum of possible complications should always be considered depending on the selected surgical procedure. Minor complications in all techniques have been described in up to 36 %. The commonest complication is bleeding with 2-5 %, urinary tract infections and wound infections. Finally, the risk of recurrence must be considered, which shows substantial differences (4-40 %); therefore, no operation technique can be given preference based solely on the risk of recurrence. Therapy decisions are always more individualized and must take the personal environment of the patient as well as the experience of the surgeon into consideration.

Long-term Outcome After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: An Observational Study of 919 Consecutive Patients

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter study aims to assess long-term functional outcome, early and late (mesh-related) complications, and recurrences after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) for rectal prolapse syndromes in a large cohort of consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcome data for prolapse repair are rare. A high incidence of mesh-related problems has been noted after transvaginal approaches using nonresorbable meshes.

METHODS

All patients treated with LVR at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands and the University Hospital Leuven, Belgium between January 1999 and March 2013 were enrolled in this study. All data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for recurrences and mesh-related problems.

RESULTS

919 consecutive patients (869 women; 50 men) underwent LVR. A 10-year recurrence rate of 8.2% (95% confidence interval, 3.7-12.7) for external rectal prolapse repair was noted. Mesh-related complications were recorded in 18 patients (4.6%), of which mesh erosion to the vagina occurred in 7 patients (1.3%). In 5 of these patients, LVR was combined with a perineotomy. Both rates of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) after LVR compared to the preoperative incidence (11.1% vs 37.5% for incontinence and 15.6% vs 54.0% for constipation).

CONCLUSIONS

LVR is safe and effective for the treatment of different rectal prolapse syndromes. Long-term recurrence rates are in line with classic types of mesh rectopexy and occurrence of mesh-related complications is rare.

Anterior rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: Technical and functional results

AIM: To assess effectiveness, complications, recurrence rate, and recent improvements of the anterior rectopexy procedure for treatment of total rectal prolapse.

METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and other relevant database were searched to identify studies. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies and original articles in English language, with more than 10 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse, with a follow-up over 3 mo were considered for the review.

RESULTS: Twelve non-randomized case series studies with 574 patients were included in the review. No surgical mortality was described. Conversion was needed in 17 cases (2.9%), most often due to difficult adhesiolysis. Twenty eight patients (4.8%) presented with major complications. Seven (1.2%) mesh-related complications were reported. Most frequent complications were urinary tract infection and urinary retention. Mean recurrence rate was 4.7% with a median follow-up of 23 mo. Improvement of constipation ranged from 3%-72% of the patients and worsening or new onset occurred in 0%-20%. Incontinence improved in 31%-84% patients who presented fecal incontinence at various stages. Evaluation of functional score was disparate between studies.

CONCLUSION: Based on the low long-term recurrence rate and favorable outcome data in terms of low de novo constipation rate, improvement of anal incontinence, and low complications rate, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy seems to emerge as an efficient procedure for the treatment of patients with total rectal prolapse.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse: The role of robotic surgery

The robotic technique as a safe approach in treatment of rectal prolapse has been widely reported during the last decade. Although there is limited clinical data regarding the benefits of robotic surgery, the safety of robotic surgery in rectal prolapse treatment has been cited by several authors. Also, the robotic approach helps overcome some of the laparoscopic approach challenges with purported advantages including improved visualization, more precise dissection, easier suturing, accurate identification of anatomic structures and fewer conversions to open surgery which can facilitate the conduct of technically challenging cases. These advantages can make robotic surgery ideally suited for minimally invasive ventral rectopexy. Currently, with greater surgeon experience in robotic surgery, the length of the procedure and the recurrence rate with the robotic approach are decreasing and short term outcomes for robotic rectal prolapse seem on par with laparoscopic and open techniques in recent studies. However, the high cost of robotic procedures is still an important issue. The benefits of a robotic approach must be weighed against the higher cost. More research is needed to better understand if the increased cost is justified by an improvement in outcomes. Also, published articles comparing long term outcomes of the robotic approach with other approaches are very limited at this time and further clinical trials are indicated to affirm the role of robotic surgery in the treatment of rectal prolapse.

Ventral colporectopexy for overt rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (VR) with the use of prosthesis has been advocated for both overt rectal prolapse (ORP) and obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS). The present study reviews the short-term and functional results of laparoscopic VR.

METHOD

A search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid and Cochrane databases on all studies reporting on VR for ORP, ODS and other anatomical abnormalities of the pelvic floor from 2004 until February 2013. No language restrictions were made. All studies on VR were reviewed systematically. The main outcomes were intra-operative complications, conversion, procedure duration, short-term mortality and morbidity, length of stay, recurrence of ORP, recurrence of anatomical disorder, faecal incontinence and constipation, quality of life (QoL) score and patient satisfaction. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by three observers.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 1460 patients were eligible for analysis. The conversion rate ranged from 0 to 14.3%. No mortality was reported. The immediate postoperative morbidity rate was 8.6%. Length of stay ranged from 1 to 7 days. A significant improvement in constipation and incontinence symptoms was observed in the postoperative period for both ORP and ODS (chi-square test, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic VR is a safe and effective procedure for ORP and ODS. Longer follow-up is required, and studies comparing VR with standard rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection are not yet available.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for the treatment of obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse: a critical appraisal of the first 100 cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is gaining wider acceptance as the preferred procedure to correct internal as well as external rectal prolapse associated with obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence. Very few reports exist on the use of biologic mesh for LVR. The aim of our study was to report the complication and recurrence rate of our first 100 cases of LVR for symptomatic internal rectal prolapse and/or rectocele using a porcine dermal collagen mesh.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data on LVR for internal rectal prolapse were analysed. Surgical complications and functional results in terms of faecal incontinence (measured with the Faecal Incontinence Severity Index = FISI) and constipation (measured with the Wexner Constipation Score = WCS) at 3, 6 and 12 months were analysed. It was considered an improvement if FISI or WCS scores were reduced by at least 25 % and a cure if the FISI score decreased to <10 and the WCS decreased to <5.

RESULTS

Between April 2009 and April 2013, 100 consecutive female patients (mean age 63 years, range 24-88 years) underwent LVR. All patients had internal rectal prolapse (grade III [n = 25] and grade IV [n = 75] according to the Oxford classification) and rectocele. Mean operative time was 85 ± 40 min. Conversion rate to open technique was 1 %. There was no post-operative mortality. Overall 16 patients (16 %) experienced 18 complications, including rectal perforation (n = 1), small bowel obstruction (n = 2), urinary tract infection (n = 8), subcutaneous emphysema (n = 3), wound haematoma (n = 2), long lasting sacral pain (n = 1) and incisional hernia (1). Median post-operative length of stay was 2 days. Ninety-eight out of 100 patients completed follow-up. At the end of follow-up, the mean FISI score improved from 8.4 (±4.0 standard deviation (SD) p = 0.003) to 3.3 ± 2.3 SD (p = 0.04). Incontinence improved in 37 out of 43 patients (86 %), and 31 patients (72 %) were cured. Similarly, the mean WCS score improved from 18.4 ± 11.6 SD to 5.4 ± 4.1 SD (p = 0.04). Constipation improved in 82 out of 89 patients (92 %), and 70 patients (79 %) were cured. No worsening of continence status, constipation or sexual function was observed. Fourteen patients (14 %) experienced persistence or recurrence of prolapse.

CONCLUSIONS

LVR using biologic mesh is a safe and effective procedure for improving symptoms of obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse associated with rectocele.

Case-matched series of a non-cross-linked biologic versus non-absorbable mesh in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is an emerging technique for selected patients with rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome. Data are insufficient to conclude which type of mesh affords the greatest benefit. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of LVR using a non-cross-linked biologic versus a permanent mesh.

METHODS

Twenty nine cases of LVR with permanent mesh were matched based on age and surgical indication with an equal number of patients using biologic mesh. Cases were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Symptom resolution, patient satisfaction and recurrence of prolapse were measured among those who underwent LVR with either a biologic (Biodesign(®), Cook Medical) or polypropylene mesh.

RESULTS

Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, surgical indication and primary symptoms were not different between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 15.4 months, all patients reported being either completely or partially satisfied. Rates of complete or partial symptom resolution (p = 0.26) or satisfaction (p = 0.27) did not differ between groups. After LVR, similar rates of additional procedures were performed in the biologic (21 %) and the permanent (28 %) mesh group. Among patients with full-thickness prolapse (n = 33), there were five cases (15 %) of recurrence, one in the biologic group and four in the permanent mesh group (p = 0.37). There were no mesh-related complications in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

LVR using a non-cross-linked biologic mesh appears to have comparable rates of symptom improvement and patient satisfaction in the short term. Longer follow-up will be required to determine if prolapse recurrence depends on mesh type.

Dynamic cystocolpoproctography is superior to functional pelvic MRI in the diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders: results of a prospective study

AIM

The accuracy of dynamic cystocolpoproctography (DCP) and dynamic MRI were compared in diagnosing posterior pelvic floor disorders.

METHOD

Fifty consecutive female patients (mean age 51 years) complaining of posterior compartment pelvic floor disorder and referred to a tertiary centre entered the prospective study. The Institutional Review Board stated that informed consent from the patients was not necessary for this study. Patients underwent a DCP and a supine functional MRI by two different radiologists. Assessment of radiological examinations was prospective and blind. All patients underwent surgery that led to the final diagnosis. Agreement between the operative diagnosis and the diagnoses following DCP and MRI was assessed using the weighted kappa statistic. A matched-pairs McNemar's test was applied to demonstrate whether or not one radiological method was superior to the other.

RESULTS

Full-thickness rectal prolapse was best diagnosed by clinical examination. Internal rectal prolapse and peritoneocele were best diagnosed by DCP. A better agreement with the operative diagnosis, which is not true superiority, was observed for DCP compared with functional pelvic MRI for full-thickness rectal prolapse, internal rectal prolapse and peritoneocele. There was no significant difference between DCP and functional pelvic MRI in the diagnosis of internal rectal prolapse (P = 0.125) or peritoneocele (P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

As full-thickness rectal prolapse, internal rectal prolapse and peritoneocele might be missed by functional pelvic MRI, there should still be a place for DCP in particular cases where the clinical diagnosis is not clear in women with symptomatic posterior pelvic floor disorders.

Long-term outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients

AIM

Full-thickness rectal prolapse is common in the elderly, but there are no particular practice guidelines for its surgical management. We evaluated retrospectively the perioperative and long-term clinical results and function in elderly and younger patients with complete rectal prolapse after robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy (RALR).

METHOD

Seventy-seven patients who underwent RALR between 2002 and 2010 were divided into Group A (age < 75 years, n = 59) and Group B (age > 75 years, n = 18). Operative time, intra- and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, short-term and long-term outcomes, recurrence rate and degree of satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups regarding operation time, conversion, morbidity or length of hospital stay. At a median follow-up of 51.8 (5-115) months, there was no difference in the improvement of faecal incontinence, recurrence and the degree of satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is safe in patients aged over 75 years and gives similar results to those in patients aged < 75 years.

Anorectal incontinence: a challenge in diagnostic and therapeutic approach

Anorectal incontinence is a symptom of a complex multifactorial disorder involving the pelvic floor and anorectum, which is a severe disability and a major social problem. Various causes may affect the anatomical and functional integrity of the pelvic floor and anorectum, leading to the anorectal continence disorder and incontinence. The most common cause of anorectal incontinence is injury of the sphincter muscles following delivery or anorectal surgeries. Although the exact incidence of anorectal incontinence is unknown, various studies suggest that it affects ~2.2-8.3% of adults, with a significant prevalence in the elderly (>50%). The successful treatment of anorectal incontinence depends on the accurate diagnosis of its cause. This can be achieved by a thorough assessment of patients. The management of incontinent patients involves conservative therapeutic procedures, surgical techniques, and minimally invasive approaches.

[Pelvic floor disorders from the surgeon's viewpoint]

Pelvic floor disorders present very differently with regard to symptoms and manifestation. Both diagnostic and treatment options require specific experience and an interdisciplinary approach. Diagnostic work-up is primarily based on medical history, physical examination and procto-rectoscopy. Furthermore, endosonography and perineal sonography have also gained importance. In almost all cases following these basic examinations conservative therapy options should be considered. As the interdisciplinary concept is very important, for careful diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders it became crucial to find an adequate form of treatment. Every decision for surgical therapy should not only focus on the results of previous examinations but should also consider the individual situation of each patient. In pelvic floor disorders a large variety of symptoms are confronted with a vast number of different and often highly specific procedures. The decisions on who to treat and how to treat are not only based on individual patient requests and desires but also on the experience and preference of the surgeon.