Anatomical and functional outcomes of rectal prolapse treatment with laparoscopic pelvic organ prolapse suspension versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

Abstract

AbstractAimVery few studies have compared laparoscopic pelvic organ prolapse suspension (POPS) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in the treatment of rectal prolapse, particularly regarding the comparison of improvement rates in obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). This study aimed to compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of these two methods over a long‐term follow‐up period.Patients and methodsThis retrospective study was conducted on 120 female patients diagnosed with rectal prolapse who underwent surgery at the Colorectal Surgery Department of Shahid Faqihi Hospital in Shiraz, Iran, between October 2015 and October 2022. The patients were categorised into two groups based on their surgical procedures: 58 underwent LVMR in the first group, and 62 underwent POPS in the second group.ResultsRecurrence of prolapse occurred in 7 (12.1%) patients in the LVMR group and 5 (8.1%) patients in the POPS group (P = .550). The mean operation time, mean length of hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale score, early and late post‐operative complications, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score, ODS symptoms, and Wexner Constipation Scores did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionBoth laparoscopic POPS and LVMR techniques significantly improved the anatomical and functional outcomes in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation. LVMR and POPS can each be considered first‐line treatment options for rectal prolapse, depending on the specific case.