Ten-year follow up after laparoscopic suture rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse

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 ).

Reduced port laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectopexy is an established treatment option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Recently, reduced port surgery (RPS) has emerged as a novel concept, offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional multiport surgery (MPS). This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RPS for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

METHODS

From October 2012 to December 2018, 37 patients (MPS: 10 cases, RPS: 27 cases) underwent laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (Wells procedure) is the standard technique for full-thickness rectal prolapse at our hospital. RPS was performed using a multi-channel access device, with an additional 12-mm right-hand port. Short-term outcomes were retrospectively compared between MPS and RPS.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between MPS and RPS in the median operative time, the median blood loss volume, the postoperative complication rates, and median hospital stay duration after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Reduced port laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy may serve as an effective therapeutic option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, to establish the superiority of RPS over MPS, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial is warranted.

Does Concomitant Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair at the Time of Rectopexy Impact Rectal Prolapse Recurrence Rates? A Retrospective Review of the Prospectively Collected Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Quality Improvement Database Pilot

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is reported in 30% of women presenting with rectal prolapse. Combined repair is a viable option to avoid the need for future pelvic floor interventions. However, the added impact of adding a modicum of middle compartment suspension by closing the pouch of Douglas during a rectal prolapse repair has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess the impact of middle compartment suspension on the durability of rectal prolapse repair. We also aimed to determine whether adding some form of pouch of Douglas closure to achieve middle compartment suspension leads to any improvements in the rates or severity of postoperative constipation or in the rates or severity of postoperative fecal incontinence.

DESIGN

This study was a retrospective analysis of a multicenter prospective database.

SETTING

Data were analyzed from the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Quality Improvement in Rectal Prolapse Surgery database. Deidentified surgeons at more than 20 sites (75% academic, 81% high volume) self-reported patient demographics, previous repairs, symptoms of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation, and operative details, including addition of concomitant gynecologic repairs, use of mesh, posterior or ventral dissection, and sigmoidectomy.

PATIENTS

Patients were included who underwent abdominal repair for rectal prolapse.

INTERVENTIONS

Abdominal rectopexy procedures with and without middle compartment suspension were compared. Middle compartment suspension was defined as excision and closure of the pouch of Douglas with some degree of colpopexy or culdoplasty.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of prolapse recurrence and secondary outcomes of incontinence and constipation were calculated via univariate and multivariable regression by comparing those who underwent rectopexy with and without middle compartment suspension.

RESULTS

Of the 198 patients (98% female, age 60.2 ± 15.6 years) who underwent abdominal repairs (59% robotic), 138 patients (70%) underwent some concomitant middle compartment suspension. Patients who had an added middle compartment suspension seemed to have lower early rectal prolapse recurrences. On multivariable regression to control for age, previous repairs, and the use of mesh, addition of some form of pouch of Douglas repair was associated with a decrease in short-term recurrences.

LIMITATIONS

Our data need to be interpreted cautiously. Future studies are critically needed to further explore this observation, with an a priori, prospective definition of middle compartment suspension, validated measurement of concomitant pathology, and longer follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that some middle compartment suspension at the time of rectal prolapse repair may improve short-term durability of rectal prolapse repair. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C30 .

LA REPARACIN CONCOMITANTE DEL PROLAPSO DE RGANOS PLVICOS EN EL MOMENTO DE LA RECTOPEXIA AFECTA LAS TASAS DE RECURRENCIA DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL UNA REVISIN RETROSPECTIVA DE UNA BASE DE DATOS RECOPILADA PROSPECTIVAMENTE DEL CONSORCIO SOBRE LA MEJORA DE LA CALIDAD DE TRASTORNOS DEL PISO PLVICO

ANTECEDENTES:El prolapso de órganos pélvicos se informa en el 30 % de las mujeres que presentan prolapso rectal y la reparación combinada es una opción viable para evitar la necesidad de futuras intervenciones del suelo pélvico. Sin embargo, no se ha estudiado el impacto adicional de agregar un mínimo de suspensión del compartimento medio cerrando el fonde de saco de Douglas durante una reparación de prolapso rectal.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar el impacto de la suspensión del compartimento medio con respecto a la durabilidad de la reparación del prolapso rectal. Quisimos de igual manera determinar si el agregado de algún tipo de cierre del fondo de saco de Douglas para lograr la suspensión del compartimento medio conduce a alguna mejora en las tasas o la gravedad del estreñimiento posoperatorio así como en las tasas o la gravedad de la incontinencia fecal posoperatoria.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos prospectiva.ESCENARIO:Base de datos Multicenter Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Prospective Quality Improvement. Cirujanos no identificados en >20 sitios (75% académicos, 81% de alto volumen) datos demográficos de pacientes auto informados, reparaciones previas, síntomas de incontinencia fecal y defecación obstruida, y detalles quirúrgicos, incluida la suma de reparaciones ginecológicas concomitantes, uso de malla, disección anterior o posterior y sigmoidectomía.INTERVENCIONES:Se compararon los procedimientos de rectopexia abdominal con y sin suspensión del compartimento medio). La suspensión del compartimento medio se definió como la escisión y cierre del fondo de saco de Douglas con algún grado de colpopexia o culdoplastia.RESULTADOS:El resultado principal de la recurrencia del prolapso y los resultados secundarios de incontinencia y estreñimiento se calcularon mediante regresión uni y multivariable al comparar los que fueron sometidos a rectopexia con y sin suspensión del compartimento medio.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a reparación abdominal por prolapso rectal.RESULTADOS:De los 198 pacientes (98% mujeres, edad 60,2 ± 15,6 años) sometidas a reparaciones abdominales (59% robótica), 138 (70%) fueron sometidas igualmente y de manera concomitante a alguna suspensión del compartimento medio. Los pacientes a los que se les añadió una suspensión del compartimento medio parecían tener menores recurrencias tempranas del prolapso rectal y, en la regresión multivariable para controlar la edad, las reparaciones previas y el uso de malla, la adición de alguna forma de reparación del fondo de saco de Douglas se asoció con una disminución de las recurrencias a corto plazo.LIMITACIONES:Nuestros datos deben interpretarse con cautela. Se necesitan de manera critica, estudios futuros para explorar más a fondo esta observación, con una definición prospectiva a priori de la suspensión del compartimento medio, una medición validada de la patología concomitante y un seguimiento más prolongado.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestros resultados sugieren que alguna suspensión del compartimento medio en el momento de la reparación del prolapso rectal puede mejorar la durabilidad a corto plazo de la reparación del prolapso rectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C30 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Does the Length of the Prolapsed Rectum Impact Outcome of Surgical Repair?

BACKGROUND

There are many surgical options for the treatment of rectal prolapse with varying recurrence rates reported. The association between rectal prolapse length and recurrence risk has not been explored previously.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether length of prolapse predicts a risk of recurrence.

DESIGN

Consecutive patients from a prospectively collected institutional review board-approved data registry were evaluated.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Colorectal Surgery.

PATIENTS

All patients from 2010 to 2018 who underwent surgical intervention for rectal prolapse were included.

INTERVENTION

Perineal repair with Delorme procedure and Altemeier, as well as abdominal repair with ventral rectopexy, resection rectopexy, and posterior rectopexy, was included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prolapse length, recurrence, type of surgery, and primary or secondary procedure were measured.

RESULTS

In total, 280 patients had prolapse surgery over 8 years, mean age was 59 years (SD = 18 y), and 92.4% were female. Seventy percent had a prolapse length documented as <5 cm, and 30% had prolapse length documented as >5 cm. The mean prolapse length was 4.8 cm (SD = 2.9 cm). The overall rate of recurrent prolapse was 18%. There were 51 patients who had a recurrent prolapse after their first prolapse surgery. Factors significant for recurrence on univariate analysis were a perineal approach (p = 0.03), previous Delorme procedure (p < 0.001), and prolapse length >5 cm (p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis there was significantly increased recurrence with length of prolapse >5 cm (OR = 2.2 (95% CI, 1.1-4.4); p = 0.02) and having a previous Delorme procedure (OR = 4.0 (95% CI, 1.6-10.1); p = 0.004). For each 1-cm increase in prolapse, the odds of recurrence increased by a factor of 2.2.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study of a heterogenous patient cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The greater the length of prolapsed rectum, the greater the risk of recurrence. The length of prolapse should be considered when planning the most appropriate surgical repair to modify the recurrence risk. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B463. EL TAMAÑO DEL RECTO PROLAPSADO AFECTA EL RESULTADO DE LA REPARACIÓN QUIRÚRGICA?: Existen muchas opciones quirúrgicas para el tratamiento del prolapso de recto con diferentes tasas de recurrencia publicadas. La asociación entre el tamaño del prolapso rectal y el riesgo de recurrencia no se han explorado previamente.Determinar si el largo en el tamaño del prolapso predice un riesgo de recidiva.Se evaluaron pacientes consecutivos de un registro de datos aprobado por el IRB recopilado prospectivamente.Departamento de cirugía colorrectal de la Clínica Cleveland, en Ohio.Todos aquellos pacientes que entre 2010 y 2018 se sometieron a una intervención quirúrgica por prolapso completo de recto.La reparación perineal incluyó los procedimientos de Altemeier y Delorme. Las reparaciones abdominales incluidas fueron la rectopexia ventral, la rectopexia con resección y la rectopexia posterior.Tamaño del prolapso, recurrencia, tipo de intervención quirúrgica y tipo de procedimiento (primario o secundario).En total, 280 pacientes se sometieron a cirugía de prolapso rectal durante 8 años, la edad media fue de 59 años (DE 18) donde el 92,4% eran mujeres. El 70% tenían un tamaño de prolapso documentado como < 5 cm y 30% tenían un tamaño de prolapso documentada como > 5 cm. La longitud media del prolapso fue de 4,8 cm (DE 2,9).La tasa general de recidiva del prolapso fue de 18%. Hubo 51 pacientes que presentaron recidiva del prolapso después de una primera cirugía. Los factores significativos para la recidiva en el análisis univariado fueron el abordaje perineal (p = 0.03), un procedimiento de Delorme previo (p <0.001) y el tamaño del prolapso > 5 cm (p = 0.04). En el análisis multivariado, hubo un aumento significativo de la recidiva en aquellos prolapsos de > 5 cm (OR 2,2; IC del 95%: 1,09-4,4; p = 0,02) con un procedimiento de Delorme previo (OR 4; IC del 95%: 1,6 a 10,1; p = 0,004). Por cada centímetro de tamaño del prolapso, las probabilidades de recidiva aumentaron en un factor de 2,2.Estudio retrospectivo de una cohorte de pacientes heterogénea.Cuanto mayor es el tamaño del recto prolapsado, mayor es el riesgo de recidiva. Se debe evaluar muy cuidadosamente el tamaño de los prolapsos para escoger la corrección quirúrgica más apropiada y así disminuir el riesgo de recidivas.Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B463. (Traducción-Dr Xavier Delgadillo).

Is it possible to reduce recurrences after Altemeier's procedure for complete rectal prolapse? Twenty-year experience in 130 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

In the attempt to understand the reasons for and to find a solution to the high recurrence rate after perineal surgery for complete rectal prolapse, we retrospectively analysed the long-term results of Altemeier's procedure alone, or associated with Trans-Obturator Colonic Suspension (TOCS) in a large series of patients with a median interval of 84 months (range 6-258).

METHODS

Medical records of 110 patients undergoing Altemeier with levatorplasty (group 1) and 20 patients submitted to the same procedure associated with TOCS (group 2) for newly diagnosed complete rectal prolapse were reviewed. All patients had been recruited after preoperative clinical examination, SF-36 quality of life, continence score and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Mortality was nil. The overall complication and the recurrence rates were 12.3%, and 15.0% (P= 0.769) and 24.6% and 5.0% (P=0.067) in group 1 and 2, respectively. Twelve patients of group 1 with a recurrence were submitted to a redo-Altemeier, 8 to a redo-Altemeier associated with TOCS, and 6 associated with an anterior coloplasty with a mesh. The only patient of group 2 with a recurrence was submitted to a Hartmann's operation. Preoperative vs postoperative mean (SD) continence score was 15.8 (3.1) and 15.6 (3.3) versus 4.1 (1.8) and 3.9 (1.9) in group 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.001). All parameters of SF-36 improved after surgery (P<0.01) and no differences between the 2 groups were found CONCLUSIONS: Long-term results confirmed the safety and effectiveness of Altemeier's procedure for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse, with the limit of a non-negligible incidence of anastomotic complications and recurrences. The combination of Altemeier with TOCS showed a positive trend to a reduction of the recurrence rate, not worsening morbidity and outcomes.

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.

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.

Clinical efficacy of integral theory–guided laparoscopic integral pelvic floor/ligament repair in the treatment of internal rectal prolapse in females

BACKGROUND

Internal rectal prolapse (IRP) is one of the most common causes of obstructive constipation. The incidence of IRP in women is approximately three times that in men. IRP is mainly treated by surgery, which can be divided into two categories: Abdominal procedures and perineal procedures. This study offers a better procedure for the treatment of IRP.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic integral pelvic floor/ligament repair (IPFLR) combined with a procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) and the laparoscopic IPFLR alone in the treatment of IRP in women.

METHODS

This study collected the clinical data of 130 female patients with IRP who underwent surgery from January 2012 to October 2014. The patients were divided into groups A and B. Group A had 63 patients who underwent laparoscopic IPFLR alone, and group B had 67 patients who underwent the laparoscopic IPFLR combined with PPH. The degree of internal rectal prolapse (DIRP), Wexner constipation scale (WCS) score, Wexner incontinence scale (WIS) score, and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) score were compared between groups and within groups before surgery and 6 mo and 2 years after surgery.

RESULTS

All laparoscopic surgeries were successful. The general information, number of bowel movements before surgery, DIRP, GIQLI score, WIS score, and WCS score before surgery were not significantly different between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The WCS score, WIS score, GIQLI score, and DIRP in each group 6 mo, and 2 years after surgery were significantly better than before surgery (P < 0.001). In group A, the DIRP and WCS score gradually improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery (P < 0.001), and the GIQLI score progressively improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery (P < 0.05). In group B, the DIRP, WCS score and WIS score significantly improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery (P < 0.05), and the GIQLI score 2 years after surgery was significantly higher than that 6 mo after surgery (P < 0.05). The WCS score, WIS score, GIQLI score, and DIRP of group B were significantly better than those of group A 6 mo and 2 years after surgery (all P < 0.001, Bonferroni) except DIRP at 2 years after surgery. There was a significant difference in the recurrence rate of IRP between the two groups 6 mo after surgery (P = 0.011). There was no significant difference in postoperative grade I-III complications between the two groups (P = 0.822).

CONCLUSION

Integral theory–guided laparoscopic IPFLR combined with PPH has a higher cure rate and a better clinical efficacy than laparoscopic IPFLR alone.

Simplified Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy for Idiopathic Rectal Prolapse In Children: Technique and Results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic suture rectopexy is safe and effective treatment option for pediatric rectal prolapse. We performed this study to compare the outcome of modified laparoscopic suture rectopexy (MLSR) versus Classical Laparoscopic suture rectopexy (CLSR).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was conducted between June 2015 to May 2019 including all the patients with persistent rectal prolapse who underwent surgery managed by either MLSR (Group A) or CLSR (Group B). The groups were compared for constipation, operative time, blood loss, length of stay, postoperative complications.

RESULTS

19 patients from MLSR and 22 patients from CLSR were evaluated. The mean operative time in MLSR group was 41.5 ± 6.2 min which was significantly lesser than CLSR group with a mean operative time of 78.6 ± 14.2 (p = 0.001). The blood loss was also less in MLSR group compared to CLSR group (p = 0.013). At three months of follow up, the constipation was less in MLSR group compared to CLSR group (p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

The modification makes the procedure technically easy, minimizes the chances of complications and retaining all the advantages of suture rectopexy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Modified Gant-Miwa-Thiersch procedure (mucosal plication with anal encircling) for rectal prolapse

AIM

Rectal prolapse (RP) is usually associated with elderly women and is well recognized as having a detrimental effect on quality of life. A number of surgical procedures for RP are available, but morbidity and mortality are substantial. The Gant-Miwa-Thiersch procedure (GMT) has been frequently used for RP in Japan. However, as GMT has a high recurrence rate it is not widely used elsewhere. The aim of this study was to evaluate a modified version of GMT (mGMT) in comparison with other procedures.

METHOD

mGMT was performed under spinal or local anaesthesia in 187 patients with RP. No normal mucosa was left between the tags and lateral wounds were created in the Thiersch procedure. Morbidity, mortality and recurrence rates were recorded.

RESULTS

No serious postoperative complications and no operative deaths occurred after mGMT. Eight per cent of patients suffered from infection of the strings. The overall recurrence rate after mGMT was 7.5% with a median follow-up period of 13.8 years.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of these results, we consider that mGMT has a number of advantages: it is minimally invasive, does not require general anaesthesia, is technically simple to perform and is associated with satisfactory outcomes and low morbidity. mGMT should be considered an option for the treatment of RP in elderly patients.

Surgical options for full-thickness rectal prolapse: current status and institutional choice

Full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) is generally believed to result from a sliding hernia through a pelvic fascial defect, or from rectal intussusception. The currently accepted cause is a pelvic floor disorder. Surgery is the only definitive treatment, although the ideal therapeutic option for FTRP has not been determined. Auffret reported the first FTRP surgery using a perineal approach in 1882, and rectopexy using conventional laparotomy was first described by Sudeck in 1922. Laparoscopy was first used by Bermann in 1992, and laparoscopic surgery is now used worldwide; robotic surgery was first described by Munz in 2004. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rates with FTRP surgery are an active research area and in this article we review previously documented surgeries and discuss the best approach for FTRP. We also introduce our institution's laparoscopic surgical technique for FTRP (laparoscopic rectopexy with posterior wrap and peritoneal closure). Therapeutic decisions must be individualized to each patient, while the surgeon's experience must also be considered.

Urological and sexual outcome in patients with Hirschsprung disease: A systematic review

PURPOSE

There is a paucity of recent evidence regarding long-term urological and sexual outcomes following surgery for Hirschsprung disease (HD). We aimed to undertake a systematic review of all HD literature to define these outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on studies from 1966 to 2014. Relevant articles were assessed for urological/sexual operative complications and functional sequelae. Studies were analysed in qualitative (Rangel score) and quantitative syntheses.

RESULTS

Initially 257 reports were assessed, with 24 studies were eligible for inclusion (1972-2014). Mean study quality was 16.5 ± SD 4.8 (range 6-23), indicating overall fair/poor quality. Ten studies (1021 patients) reported operative complications, with ureteric/urethral/vaginal injury occurring in seven (0.7%) patients. In three studies, the primary outcome was urological functional assessment. From 17 studies, 52/2546 patients (2.0%) had reported urinary incontinence. In infants, absent spontaneous erections post-operatively was reported in 3/203 patients (1.5%, 5 studies); of these 3, parents did not note spontaneous erections pre-operatively either. In older patients, erectile dysfunction occurred in 6/498 (1.2%) males. Other sexual outcomes were reported in 10 studies, with 5/10 studies (416 patients) reporting no erectile dysfunction. In the other studies reports ranged from non-specified sexual dysfunction in one study to diverse sexual related problems in nine (7.8%) of their patients in another.

CONCLUSIONS

Urological/sexual outcomes are rarely reported after HD surgery (24 studies over 42 years). Study quality is usually poor and a large proportion of the studies are more than 30 years old. In the majority of series it is unclear whether urological and sexual function impairments were not present or if they were not assessed. Prospective reporting of urological/sexual outcome is required, in particular in the era of new surgical techniques/approaches to HD.

Recurrence of rectal prolapse following rectopexy: a pooled analysis of 532 patients

AIM

The study was designed to address the unanswered question of the influence of the extent of rectal mobilization, the type of rectal fixation and the surgical access (open vs laparoscopic) on recurrence rates following abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP).

METHOD

Individual patient data were pooled and data merging was performed following comparison of variable definitions to ensure similarity in definitions. Recurrence after rectopexy was defined as the presence of FTRP on physical examination. The impact of categorical factors on recurrence was assessed using Fisher's exact and the chi-squared tests. Recurrence-free survival curves were generated for patients and differences in time to recurrence were compared using the log rank test. Factors passing univariate screening with a P value < 0.1 were included in a multivariate model.

RESULTS

After data matching and merging, 532 patients were included. The duration of follow-up ranged from 12 to 235 months. There were 46 (8.6%) recurrences at a median follow-up of 60 months. Mean age was 53.6 ± 17 years, 359 (67.5%) were female, the mean length of external prolapse was 6.3 ± 4 cm, and previous abdominal surgery had taken place in 33.7%. Four variables were identified on initial univariate screening as being related to recurrence. They included a history of incontinence (P = 0.09), constipation (P = 0.018), the extent of rectal mobilization (P = 0.004) and the role of sigmoid resection (P = 0.057). Using multivariate analysis, only the degree of mobilization was independently associated with recurrence (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Circumferential rectal mobilization during rectopexy was associated with a decreased long-term recurrence rate. The type of rectal fixation and the type of surgical access did not influence recurrence.

[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.

Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults

BACKGROUND

Complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse is a lifestyle-altering disability that commonly affects older people. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying pelvic floor defects in full-thickness rectal prolapse reflects the lack of consensus regarding the best operation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different surgical repairs for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register up to 3 February 2015; it contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as well as trials identified through handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We also searched EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1947 to February 2015) and PubMed (January 1950 to December 2014), and we specifically handsearched theBritish Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to June 2014), Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to June 2014) and Colorectal Diseases (January 2000 to June 2014), as well as the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meetings (January 2000 to December 2014). Finally, we handsearched reference lists of all relevant articles to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgery for managing full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The four primary outcome measures were the number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse, number of patients with faecal incontinence and number of patients with constipation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1007 participants in this third review update. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery, and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy. One new trial compared rectopexy versus rectal mobilisation only (no rectopexy), performed with either open or laparoscopic surgery. One new trial compared different techniques used in perineal surgery, and another included three comparisons: abdominal versus perineal surgery, resection versus no resection rectopexy in abdominal surgery and different techniques used in perineal surgery.The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. Given these caveats, there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches are most effective. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more postoperative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation. Recurrence of full-thickness prolapse was greater for mobilisation of the rectum only compared with rectopexy. There were no differences in quality of life for patients who underwent the different kinds of prolapse surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The lack of high quality evidence on different techniques, together with the small sample size of included trials and their methodological weaknesses, severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Longer follow-up with current studies and larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence base and to define the optimum surgical treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and pelvic floor disorders

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

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.