Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in male patients with internal or external rectal prolapse

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse often affects women but may also affect men. This systematic review aimed to provide outcomes of surgery for complete rectal prolapse reported in studies with a predominantly male population.

METHODS

This PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review searched PubMed and Scopus between January 2000 and February 2024; Google Scholar was queried for studies reporting outcomes of complete rectal prolapse surgery in predominately (> 90%) male populations. Main outcome measures were recurrence, complications, operative time, and bowel function.

RESULTS

Eight studies (452 patients; median age 45.6 years) were included; 80.5% of patients underwent abdominal procedures whereas 19.5% underwent perineal procedures. The prevalence of recurrence was 11.2% after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR), 0.8% after posterior mesh rectopexy (PMR), 0 after resection rectopexy, and 19.3% after perineal procedures. The prevalence of complications was 13.9% after VMR, 13.1% after PMR, 43.3% after resection rectopexy, and 17.4% after perineal procedures. The most improvement in constipation was noted after resection rectopexy (83.3-100%) and in fecal incontinence (FI) was noted after posterior mesh rectopexy (86.4-90%). Abdominal procedures had lower rates of recurrence (6% vs. 19.3%, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21-1.18, p = 0.113), similar complication rates (14.3% vs. 13.6%, RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.06-2.9, p = 0.374), and longer operative times (116 ± 47.2 vs. 74.2 ± 23.6 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of rectal prolapse in male patients undergoing abdominal procedures was associated with longer operative times, lower recurrence rates, and similar complications to perineal procedures. PMR and resection rectopexy had the lowest recurrence. The most improvement in FI and constipation was noted after PMR and resection rectopexy, respectively.

Laparoscopic Sacral Mesh Fixation for Ventral Rectopexy: Clinical Implications From a Cadaver Study

BACKGROUND

Correct tack placement at the sacral promontory for mesh fixation in ventral mesh rectopexy is crucial to avoid bleeding, nerve dysfunction, and spondylodiscitis.

OBJECTIVE

The present cadaver study was designed to assess the true location of tacks after mesh fixation during laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in relation to vascular and nerve structures and bony landmarks.

DESIGN

This was an interventional cadaver study.

SETTING

This study was conducted after laparoscopic mesh fixation detailed pelvic dissection was performed following a standardized protocol. In addition, 64-row multidetector computed tomography was conducted to further define lumbosacral anatomy and tack positioning.

PATIENTS

Eighteen fresh cadavers (10 female, 8 male) were included in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

True tack position and vascular and neuronal involvement served as outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 52 tacks were deployed (median 3, range 2-3 tacks). Median tack distance to the midsacral promontory was 16.1 mm (0.0-54.2). Only a total of 22 tacks (42.3%) were found on the right surface of the S1 vertebra, correlating with the planned deployment area. In 7 cadavers (38.8%), all tacks were deployed on the planned deployment area. The median distance to the major vessels was 10.5 mm (0.0-35.0), which was the internal iliac artery in half of the cases. Median distance of tacks to the right ureter was 32.1 mm (7.5-46.1). Neither major vessels nor the ureter was injured. Dissection of the hypogastric plexus was undertaken in 14 cadavers, and in each cadaver, tacks affected the hypogastric nerve plexus.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the moderate number of cadavers.

CONCLUSIONS

Tack placement showed significant variation in our specimen, emphasising the need for reliable anatomic landmarks and sufficient exposure during ventral mesh rectopexy. Hypogastric nerve plexus involvement is common, thus detailed functional assessment after surgery is required. It also points out the importance of cadaver studies before implementing new surgical techniques into clinical practice. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B827.

FIJACIN LAPAROSCPICA DE MALLA SACRA PARA RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL IMPLICACIONES CLNICAS DE UN ESTUDIO SOBRE CADAVERS

ANTECEDENTES:La colocación correcta de la tachuela en el promontorio sacro para la fijación de la malla en la rectopexia con malla ventral es crucial para evitar hemorragias, disfunción nerviosa y espondilodiscitis.OBJETIVO:El presente estudio en cadáveres fue diseñado para evaluar la verdadera ubicación de las tachuelas después de la fijación de la malla durante la rectopexia laparoscópica con malla ventral en relación con las estructuras vasculares y nerviosas y los puntos de referencia óseos.DISEÑO:Estudio intervencionista de cadáveres.AJUSTE:Después de la fijación laparoscópica de la malla, se realizó una disección pélvica detallada siguiendo un protocolo estandarizado. Además, se realizó una tomografía computarizada multidetector de 64 cortes para definir mejor la anatomía lumbosacra y la posición de la tachuela.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en este estudio dieciocho cadáveres frescos (10 mujeres, 8 hombres).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Posición real de tachuela y compromiso vascular y neuronal.RESULTADOS:Se utilizaron un total de 52 tachuelas (mediana 3, 2-3 tachuelas). La distancia media de tachuela al promontorio sacro medio fue de 16,1 mm (0,0-54,2). Solo se encontraron un total de 22 tachuelas (42,3%) en la superficie derecha de la vértebra S1, correlacionándose con el área planificada. En siete cadáveres (38,8%) todas las tachuelas se utilizaron en el área de planificada. La distancia media a los vasos principales fue de 10,5 mm (0,0-35,0), que era la arteria ilíaca interna en la mitad de los casos. La distancia media de las tachuelas al uréter derecho fue de 32,1 mm (7,5-46,1). No se lesionó ni los grandes vasos ni el uréter. La disección del plexo hipogástrico se realizó en 14 cadáveres y en cada cadáver, las tachuelas afectaron el plexo nervioso hipogástrico.LIMITACIONES:Número moderado de cadáveres incluidos en el estudio.CONCLUSIONES:La colocación de tachuelas mostró una variación significativa en nuestra muestra, enfatizando la necesidad de puntos de referencia anatómicos confiables y una exposición suficiente durante la rectopexia con malla ventral. La afectación del plexo nervioso hipogástrico es común, por lo que se requiere una evaluación funcional detallada después de la cirugía. También destaca la importancia de los estudios sobre cadáveres antes de implementar nuevas técnicas quirúrgicas en la práctica clínica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B827. (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado).

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.

A comparative study on the surgical options for male rectal prolapse

Purpose:

Rectal prolapse is known to be a rare condition in males compared to females. This study aimed to analyse the frequency of male rectal prolapse and compare the results of different surgical approaches performed at a single centre.

Patients and Methods:

The authors included patients who underwent surgical treatment for rectal prolapse from March 2016 to February 2021. The proportion of males, mean age and recurrence rates were calculated. Patients were divided into two groups, transanal approach and laparoscopic abdominal approach group, to identify the para-operative parameters including functional tests.

Results:

A total of 56 males, comprising 23.7% (56/236) of all patients. The mean age was 60.8 years, with a recurrence rate of 7 cases (12.5%) during 7.2 months of follow-up. Forty patients underwent transanal procedures, and fifteen underwent laparoscopic abdominal procedures. The mean operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (transanal vs. abdominal, 57.5 vs. 70.6 min, P < 0.003), and intra-operative bleeding was greater in the transanal group (12.4 vs. 3.4 ml, P < 0.001). Full-layer prolapse (36.8 vs. 81.2% P = 0.003) and longer length (5.6 vs. 7.8 cm, P = 0.048) were more common in laparoscopic group. Time to feeding resumption was shorter after the transanal group (1.2 vs. 1.7 days, P = 0.028). There was no difference between the groups in terms of post-operative complications and recurrence rates. Both Wexner's constipation and incontinence scores showed significant improvement postoperatively.

Conclusion:

The frequency of male rectal prolapse was 23.7%, and perioperative factors differed between transanal and abdominal approaches, but recurrence rates and functional test results did not differ significantly.

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.

Non-drug therapies for the management of chronic constipation in adults: the CapaCiTY research programme including three RCTs

Background

Chronic constipation affects 1–2% of adults and significantly affects quality of life. Beyond the use of laxatives and other basic measures, there is uncertainty about management, including the value of specialist investigations, equipment-intensive therapies using biofeedback, transanal irrigation and surgery.

Objectives

(1) To determine whether or not standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback is more clinically effective than standardised specialist-led habit training alone, and whether or not outcomes of such specialist-led interventions are improved by stratification to habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback or habit training alone based on prior knowledge of anorectal and colonic pathophysiology using standardised radiophysiological investigations; (2) to compare the impact of transanal irrigation initiated with low-volume and high-volume systems on patient disease-specific quality of life; and (3) to determine the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with controls at short-term follow-up.

Design

The Chronic Constipation Treatment Pathway (CapaCiTY) research programme was a programme of national recruitment with a standardised methodological framework (i.e. eligibility, baseline phenotyping and standardised outcomes) for three randomised trials: a parallel three-group trial, permitting two randomised comparisons (CapaCiTY trial 1), a parallel two-group trial (CapaCiTY trial 2) and a stepped-wedge (individual-level) three-group trial (CapaCiTY trial 3).

Setting

Specialist hospital centres across England, with a mix of urban and rural referral bases.

Participants

The main inclusion criteria were as follows: age 18–70 years, participant self-reported problematic constipation, symptom onset > 6 months before recruitment, symptoms meeting the American College of Gastroenterology’s constipation definition and constipation that failed treatment to a minimum basic standard. The main exclusion criteria were secondary constipation and previous experience of study interventions.

Interventions

CapaCiTY trial 1: group 1 – standardised specialist-led habit training alone (n = 68); group 2 – standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (n = 68); and group 3 – standardised radiophysiological investigations-guided treatment (n = 46) (allocation ratio 3 : 3 : 2, respectively). CapaCiTY trial 2: transanal irrigation initiated with low-volume (group 1, n = 30) or high-volume (group 2, n = 35) systems (allocation ratio 1 : 1). CapaCiTY trial 3: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy performed immediately (n = 9) and after 12 weeks’ (n = 10) and after 24 weeks’ (n = 9) waiting time (allocation ratio 1 : 1 : 1, respectively).

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were standardised outcomes for all three trials. The primary clinical outcome was mean change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score at the 6-month, 3-month or 24-week follow-up. The secondary clinical outcomes were a range of validated disease-specific and psychological scoring instrument scores. For cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life-year estimates were determined from individual participant-level cost data and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, data. Participant experience was investigated through interviews and qualitative analysis.

Results

A total of 275 participants were recruited. Baseline phenotyping demonstrated high levels of symptom burden and psychological morbidity. CapaCiTY trial 1: all interventions (standardised specialist-led habit training alone, standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback and standardised radiophysiological investigations-guided habit training alone or habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback) led to similar reductions in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score (approximately –0.8 points), with no statistically significant difference between habit training alone and habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (–0.03 points, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.27 points; p = 0.8445) or between standardised radiophysiological investigations and no standardised radiophysiological investigations (0.22 points, 95% confidence interval –0.11 to 0.55 points; p = 0.1871). Secondary outcomes reflected similar levels of benefit for all interventions. There was no evidence of greater cost-effectiveness of habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback or stratification by standardised radiophysiological investigations compared with habit training alone (with the probability that habit training alone is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gain; p = 0.83). Participants reported mixed experiences and similar satisfaction in all groups in the qualitative interviews. CapaCiTY trial 2: at 3 months, there was a modest reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score, from a mean of 2.4 to 2.2 points (i.e. a reduction of 0.2 points), in the low-volume transanal irrigation group compared with a larger mean reduction of 0.6 points in the high-volume transanal irrigation group (difference –0.37 points, 95% confidence interval –0.89 to 0.15 points). The majority of participants preferred high-volume transanal irrigation, with substantial crossover to high-volume transanal irrigation during follow-up. Compared with low-volume transanal irrigation, high-volume transanal irrigation had similar costs (median difference –£8, 95% confidence interval –£240 to £221) and resulted in significantly higher quality of life (0.093 quality-adjusted life-years, 95% confidence interval 0.016 to 0.175 quality-adjusted life-years). CapaCiTY trial 3: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy resulted in a substantial short-term mean reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score (–1.09 points, 95% confidence interval –1.76 to –0.41 points) and beneficial changes in all other outcomes; however, significant increases in cost (£5012, 95% confidence interval £4446 to £5322) resulted in only modest increases in quality of life (0.043 quality-adjusted life-years, 95% confidence interval –0.005 to 0.093 quality-adjusted life-years), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £115,512 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Conclusions

Excluding poor recruitment and underpowering of clinical effectiveness analyses, several themes emerge: (1) all interventions studied have beneficial effects on symptoms and disease-specific quality of life in the short term; (2) a simpler, cheaper approach to nurse-led behavioural interventions appears to be at least as clinically effective as and more cost-effective than more complex and invasive approaches (including prior investigation); (3) high-volume transanal irrigation is preferred by participants and has better clinical effectiveness than low-volume transanal irrigation systems; and (4) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in highly selected participants confers a very significant short-term reduction in symptoms, with low levels of harm but little effect on general quality of life.

Limitations

All three trials significantly under-recruited [CapaCiTY trial 1, n = 182 (target 394); CapaCiTY trial 2, n = 65 (target 300); and CapaCiTY trial 3, n = 28 (target 114)]. The numbers analysed were further limited by loss before primary outcome.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11791740, ISRCTN11093872 and ISRCTN11747152.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stepped-wedge randomised trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is an established treatment for external full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, its clinical efficacy in patients with internal prolapse is uncertain due to the lack of high-quality evidence.

Methods

An individual level, stepped-wedge randomised trial has been designed to allow observer-blinded data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR with those who have undergone surgery. Adults with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse, unresponsive to prior conservative management, will be eligible to participate. They will be randomised to three arms with different delays before surgery (0, 12 and 24 weeks). Efficacy outcome data will be collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks). The primary objective is to determine clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls with reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) at 24 weeks serving as the primary outcome. Secondary objectives are to determine: (1) the clinical effectiveness of LVMR to 48 weeks to a maximum of 72 weeks; (2) pre-operative determinants of outcome; (3) relevant health economics for LVMR; (4) qualitative evaluation of patient and health professional experience of LVMR and (5) 30-day morbidity and mortality rates.

Discussion

An individual-level, stepped-wedge, randomised trial serves the purpose of providing an untreated comparison for the active treatment group, while at the same time allowing the waiting-listed participants an opportunity to obtain the intervention at a later date. In keeping with the basic ethical tenets of this design, the average waiting time for LVMR (12 weeks) will be shorter than that for routine services (24 weeks).

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11747152. Registered on 30 September 2015. The trial was prospectively registered (first patient enrolled on 21 March 2016).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2456-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Abdominal rectopexy for the treatment of internal rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Internal rectal prolapse (IRP) is a unique functional disorder that presents with a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms, including constipation and/or faecal incontinence (FI). The present review aims to analyse the results of trials evaluating the role of abdominal rectopexy in the treatment of IRP with regard to regarding functional and technical outcomes.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature for the role of abdominal rectopexy in patients with IRP was conducted. PubMed/Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for published and unpublished studies from January 2000 to December 2015.

RESULTS

We reviewed 14 studies including 1301 patients (1180 women) of a median age of 59 years. The weighted mean rates of improvement of obstructed defaecation (OD) and FI across the studies were 73.9% and 60.2%, respectively. Twelve studies reported clinical recurrence in 84 (6.9%) patients. The weighted mean recurrence rate of IRP among the studies was 5.8% (95% CI: 4.2-7.5). Two hundred and thirty complications were reported with a weighted mean complication rate of 15%. Resection rectopexy had lower recurrence rates than did ventral rectopexy, whereas ventral rectopexy achieved better symptomatic improvement, a shorter operative time and a lower complication rate.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal rectopexy for IRP attained satisfactory results with improvement of OD and, to a lesser extent, FI, a low incidence of recurrence and an acceptable morbidity rate. Although ventral rectopexy was associated with higher recurrence rates, lower complication rates and better improvement of bowel symptoms than resection rectopexy, these findings cannot be confirmed owing to the limitations of this review.

Functional Disorders: Rectoanal Intussusception

Rectoanal intussusception is an invagination of the rectal wall into the lumen of the rectum. Patients may present with constipation, incomplete evacuation, incontinence, or may be asymptomatic. Defecography has been the gold standard for detection. Magnetic resonance imaging defecography and dynamic anal endosonography are alternatives to conventional defecography. However, both methods are not as sensitive as conventional defecography. Treatment options range from conservative/medical treatment such as biofeedback to surgical procedures such as Delorme, rectopexy, and stapled transanal rectal resection. Recent studies conducted after a trial of failed nonoperative management show adequate results with operations performed for rectal intussusception with or without rectocele if other causes of constipation are not present.

Evolution of male rectal prolapse surgery and initial experience of robotic rectopexy in men

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has proven benefit in the treatment of external rectal prolapse and symptomatic internal rectal prolapse in women. However, there is a recurrence rate of 4-50% depending on indication. Some of this recurrence is attributable to persistent lateral and posterior prolapses. Modifications of LVMR (modified Orr-Loygue rectopexies) describe an additional narrow posterior rectal mesh fixed to the mesorectal fat, which is inherently insecure. Additional complications in men include sexual dysfunction caused by nerve damage from the ventral rectal dissection. There is one case series in men, published by a surgeon with an unusually large practice, showing LVMR to have a good success rate with low rates of sexual dysfunction. Other series have contained small numbers of men, but subgroup analysis to determine success and complication rates is not possible. Robotic surgery is more precise than laparoscopic surgery, allows stereotactic vision, and has a stable platform. We have developed a robotic modified Orr-Loygue rectopexy in an attempt to deal with the persistent components of posterior rectal prolapse by placing a mesh posteriorly through a narrow dissection and securing the mesh to the distal rectal muscle tube. Mesh-to-muscle fixation is more secure than mesh-to-mesorectal fat fixation. The robotic platform also improves the accuracy of ventral dissection and reduces the risk of sexual dysfunction in men. Our initial results indicate that robotic modified Orr-Loygue rectopexy is a safe and feasible option for rectal prolapse in men, with no more complications or recurrences than the best published outcomes for LVMR.

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.