Pelvic pain is a common prolapse symptom and improvement after ventral mesh rectopexy is more frequent than deterioration or de novo pain

AIM

The aim of this work was to assess the relationship between pelvic pain and rectal prolapse both before prolapse surgery and in the long term after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR).

METHOD

Patients undergoing VMR between 2004 and 2017 were contacted. Outcomes including the severity of pelvic pain were recorded using a numeric rating scale.

RESULTS

Four hundred and seventy eight of the 749 patients (64%) were successfully contacted. Of these, 39% reported pre-existing pelvic pain prior to VMR (group A) and 61% were pain free (group B). The median follow-up time was 8.0 years (interquartile range 5.0-10.0 years). Symptoms of obstructed defaecation were significantly more common (p = 0.002) in group A (91/187, 49%) than in group B (101/291, 35%). In contrast, faecal incontinence was more common (p = 0.007) in group B (75/291, 26%) than in group A (29/187, 15%). In group A, 76% showed improvement in pelvic pain after VMR: 61% were pain free and 39% had partial improvement in their pre-existing pelvic pain. Patients with persistent pelvic pain were younger (p = 0.01) and more likely to have revisional surgery after VMR (p = 0.0003), but there was no relation to the indication for surgery (p = 0.59). In group B, 15% reported de novo pelvic pain after VMR, and this was more common in women under 50 years old (p = 0.001), when obstructed defaecation was the indication (p = 0.03), in mesh erosion (p = <0.05) and when associated with revisional surgery (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Pelvic pain is common (39%) in patients undergoing prolapse surgery, and VMR improves this pain in most patients (76%). However, a significant number of patients fail to improve (12%), experience worsening of pain (12%) or develop de novo pelvic pain (15%).

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.

Minimally invasive organ-preserving approaches in the management of mesh erosion after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

AIM

This is a systematic approach for minimally invasive methods in the management of mesh erosion after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

METHODS

All patients managed with organ-preserving techniques for mesh erosion were identified from a prospective database and clinical records were reviewed. Each patient was contacted via telephone and a structured questionnaire was applied. A Likert score was used to assess patient symptoms and overall satisfaction with management. One or more of the following techniques were used: (i) transanal or transvaginal trimming/excision of exposed mesh and sutures, with or without using transanal endoscopic micro surgery or transanal minimally invasive surgery; (ii) laparoscopic pelvic assessment and detachment of mesh from the sacral promontory.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were managed for mesh erosion with organ-preserving techniques. All were women with a median age of 60 years [interquartile range (IQR) 53.5-68.5]. Vaginal, rectal, perineal erosion and recto-vaginal fistulation occurred in five, four, one and one patient respectively. Vaginal erosions presented at a median of 51 months (IQR 36-56) after index laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared to 17.5 months (IQR 14.5-27.25) for the rectal erosions. Median follow-up time was 24 months (IQR 19-49). Four of the meshes (36%) were removed completely whereas seven (63%) were partially removed. Vaginal erosions required a median of two procedures to achieve resolution as opposed to five for rectal. Out of 11 patients, eight were satisfied with the outcome of their management, whereas two were not and one remained ambivalent.

CONCLUSION

An organ-sparing minimally invasive approach is feasible in managing mesh erosions but requires multiple procedures and months to complete.

Povidone-iodine ointment: no effect of split skin graft healing time

In major burns, local treatment of the split skin graft after a burn injury is important to prevent serious infectious complications. Topical burn wound therapy may improve the bacteriological condition of the wound, which in turn may improve the successful take of a skin graft. Delay of wound healing is an undesired side effect of these topical anti-microbial agents. It is known that povidone-iodine has many clinical advantages. In view of this, the total healing time of the freshly grafted burn wound was studied. In this prospective study, comparable areas of the same patient were treated with povidone-iodine ointment or with simple vaseline gauze. There was no statistical difference in the total wound healing time between the treated and the control group.