Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy Research Articles

Recurrent pelvic prolapse after pelvic organ prolapse suspension (POPS): Analysis and treatment of an emerging clinical issue

ObjectivesTo investigate pelvic organ prolapse (POP) after a novel abdominal prosthetic surgical technique – ‘pelvic organ prolapse suspension’ (POPS) – that has been proposed recently as an easily reproducible laparoscopic technique for the treatment of multicompartmental POP and rectal prolapse. This study also aimed to analyse treatment strategies of recurrent POP after POPS, reporting on anatomical, subjective and functional outcomes following recurrence surgery. MethodsPatients with a symptomatic prolapse relapse after POPS were collected and analysed prospectively at a single tertiary care institution. Each patient was offered a multidisciplinary clinical and radiological evaluation pre-operatively. ResultsTwenty-five women with a median age of 59 [interquartile range (IQR) 49–73] years were enrolled in the study. Of these, 88 % were menopausal. All patients had high-grade (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System stage > 2) recurrent posterior vaginal wall-predominant prolapse after POPS. Multicompartmental prolapse was found in 64 % of patients. All women complained of vaginal bulging associated with obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS) symptoms. Surgical treatment consisted of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (VR) in all 25 cases (100 %), and concomitant sacral colpopexy (SCP) with previous mesh removal in 16 cases (64 %). No anatomical recurrences were observed after median follow-up of 12 (IQR 3–18) months. Overall subjective improvement after surgery was high in all patients (Patient Global Improvement Index ≤ 2). ConclusionsRecurrent POP following POPS appears to predominantly involve the posterior vaginal wall, with associated ODS symptoms. A multidisciplinary approach is advisable for treatment of these patients. Minimally invasive VR alone or in combination with SCP seems to represent an effective treatment.

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and Stapled Transanal Rectal Resection for Managing Obstructed Defecation Syndrome

Abstract Background: Obstructed defecation syndrome has several underlying causes and is a prevalent but poorly understood condition. It is characterized by the inability to pass stool even when one experiences the urge to defecate. Initial therapy for ODS usually involves diet modifications, pelvic floor exercises, and biofeedback, which can considerably reduce symptoms. Surgical intervention may be recommended for individuals who present with certain anatomical anomalies and who do not respond to conservative therapies. Objectives: To assess and compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) for ODS management. Design: The study conducted a retrospective review of prospectively gathered data on the outcomes of 162 patients treated for ODS at our facility between January 2015 and January 2022 using either LVMR or STARR. Settings: The study was conducted at our facility between January 2015 and January 2022, evaluating 162 patients with ODS who underwent either LVMR (118 patients) or STARR (44 patients). Patient and Methods: The Modified Longo’s Scores (MLS) were used as the primary evaluation tool, determined preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months. Sample Size: A total of 162 patients were included in the study, with 118 patients who underwent LVMR and 44 patients who underwent STARR for the treatment of ODS at our facility between January 2015 and January 2022. Results: Preoperative MLS for LVMR patients averaged 23.41, which was similar to that of STARR patients (23.52), showing no statistically significant difference. After 1 month, the mean MLS showed a significant decrease of 93.3% among LVMR patients and that of 18.0% among STARR patients from the preoperative mean MLS, indicating a significantly greater change among LVMR patients than among STARR patients. Similarly, after 6 months, the preoperative mean MLS for LVMR patients and STARR patients revealed a substantial decline of 95.4% and 6.5%, respectively, with LVMR patients experiencing a considerably greater change than STARR patients. After 12 months, the mean MLS showed a significant decrease of 96.6% and 3.6% among LVMR and STARR patients from the preoperative mean MLS, respectively, with change being significantly more among LVMR patients than STARR patients. Conclusion: LVMR can be the preferred method because it outperforms STARR in terms of alleviating ODS symptoms. Limitations: This research involved a retrospective study using a small sample size and a short follow-up period. Conflicts of Interest: None.

Rapid Onset of De Novo Rectal Prolapse Following Colpocleisis.

The aim of this video case series is to demonstrate our experience of the clinical findings and the surgical management of the rapid onset de novo rectal prolapse (RP) following colpocleisis METHODS: This is a case series of three patients who developed de novo RP within 1 month after colpocleisis, which was repaired by laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). The video shows the physical, radiological, and intraoperative findings of these patients. A retrospective review of our surgical cases of RP was also performed to analyze the onset timing of de novo RP after various pelvic organ prolapse (POP) procedures. The pathological condition of all three patients' RP was evacuation enterocele, and LVMR was feasible without postoperative complications or recurrences. In the retrospective case review of 158 RP surgeries in our institution (June 2015 to September 2023), 18 cases (11.4%) occurred following POP surgery. De novo RP following colpocleisis developed significantly earlier than those following other procedures (average: 6.1 vs 66.4months, p = 0.010). Although de novo RP following colpocleisis is relatively rare, this complication could have a detrimental effect on patients' quality of life. Preoperative informed consent may be advisable before planning colpocleisis.

Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates—a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundIn elderly patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse (EFTRP), the exact differences in postoperative recurrence and functional outcomes between laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and perineal stapler resection (PSR) have not yet been investigated.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective multicenter study on 330 elderly patients divided into LVMR group (n = 250) and PSR (n = 80) from April 2012 to April 2019. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery by Wexner incontinence scale, Altomare constipation scale, and patient satisfaction questionnaire. The primary outcomes were incidence and risk factors for EFTRP recurrence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative incontinence, constipation, and patient satisfaction.ResultsLVMR was associated with fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001), lower prolapse recurrence (p < 0.001), lower Wexner incontinence score (p = 0.03), and lower Altomare’s score (p = 0.047). Furthermore, LVMR demonstrated a significantly higher surgery–recurrence interval (p < 0.001), incontinence improvement (p = 0.019), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) than PSR. Three and 13 patients developed new symptoms in LVMR and PSR, respectively. The predictors for prolapse recurrence were LVMR (associated with 93% risk reduction of recurrence, OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.03–0.347, p = 0.001), symptom duration (prolonged duration was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, OR 1.131, 95% CI 1.036–1.236, p = 0.006), and length of prolapse (increased length was associated with a high recurrence risk (OR = 1.407, 95% CI = 1.197–1.655, p < 0.001).ConclusionsLVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes.Trial registrationClinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the oldest old is safe: the race is run.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is considered to be the gold standard for managing rectal prolapse. Nevertheless, concerns have been expressed about the use of this procedure in elderly patients. The aim of the current study was to examine the perioperative safety of primary LVMR operations in the oldest old in comparison to younger individuals and to assess our hospital policy of offering LVMR to all patients, regardless of age and morbidity. A retrospective study analysed demographic information, operation notes, meshes utilised, operation times, lengths of hospital stay (LOS) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores of patients who underwent LVMR at Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital between 2012 and 2023. Eighty-seven female patients underwent LVMR. Nineteen patients were 80years of age or older (OLD group); the remaining 65 patients were under the age of 80 (YOUNG group). The difference between the groups in terms of age was statistically significant. ASA scores were not significantly different. No mortality was observed. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of LOS, operation time or morbidity. Moreover, the postoperative morbidity profile was excellent in both groups. LVMR seems to be a safe operation for the "oldest old" patients with comorbidity, despite a single-centre, retrospective trial with limited follow-up. The present study suggests abandoning the dogma that "frail patients with rectal prolapse are not suitable for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy."

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

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. 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. 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%). 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.

Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Male Patients: Tips and Tricks.

Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Male Patients: Tips and Tricks.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients

PurposeObstructed defecation syndrome represents 50–60% of patients with symptoms of constipation. We aimed to compare the two frequently performed surgical methods, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair, for this condition in terms of functional and surgical outcomes.MethodsThis study is a retrospective review of 131 female patients who were diagnosed with obstructed defecation syndrome, attributed to rectocele with or without rectal intussusception, enterocele, hysterocele or cystocele, and who underwent either laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy or transperineal mesh repair. Patients were evaluated for surgical outcomes based on the operative time, the length of hospital stay, operative complications, using prospectively designed charts. Functional outcome was assessed by using the Initial Measurement of Patient-Reported Pelvic Floor Complaints Tool.ResultsFifty-one patients diagnosed with complex rectocele underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, and 80 patients diagnosed with simple rectocele underwent transperineal mesh repair. Mean age was found to be 50.35 ± 13.51 years, and mean parity 2.14 ± 1.47. Obstructed defecation symptoms significantly improved in both study groups, as measured by the Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory, Constipation Severity Instrument and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms scores. Minor postoperative complications including wound dehiscence (n = 3) and wound infection (n = 2) occurred in the transperineal mesh repair group.ConclusionLaparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair are efficient and comparable techniques in terms of improvement in constipation symptoms related to obstructed defecation syndrome. A selective distribution of patients with or without multicompartmental prolapse to one of the treatment arms might be the preferred strategy.

Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series.

Introduction: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is the standard procedure for the treatment of posterior pelvic organ prolapse. Despite significant functional improvement and anatomical corrections, severe complications related to mesh augmentation can occur in a few proportions of patients. In order to decrease the number of rare but severe complications, we developed a variant of the conventional VMR without any rectal fixation and using a robotic approach with biological mesh. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with synthetic mesh (LVMRS) to those of robotic ventral rectopexy with biological mesh (RVMRB). Methods: Between 2004 and 2021, patients operated on for VMR in our unit were identified and separated into two groups: LVMRS and RVMRB. The surgical technique for both groups consisted of VMR without any rectal fixation, with mesh distally secured on the levator ani muscles. Results: 269 patients with a mean age of 62 years were operated for posterior pelvic floor disorder: rectocele (61.7%) and external rectal prolapse (34.6%). 222 (82.5%) patients received LVMRS (2004-2015), whereas 47 were operated with RVMRB (2015-2021). Both groups slightly differed for combined anterior fixation proportion (LVMRS 39% vs. RVMRB 6.4%, p < 0.001). Despite these differences, the length of stay was shorter in the RVMRB group (2 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were comparable in the two groups (1.8 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.089) and mainly consisted of minor complications. Functional outcomes were favorable and similar in both groups, with an improvement in bulging, obstructed defecation symptoms, and fecal incontinence (NS in subgroup analysis). In the long term, there were no mesh erosions reported. The overall recurrence rate was 11.9%, and was comparable in the two groups (13% LVMRS vs. 8.5, p = 0.43). Conclusions: VMR without rectal fixation is a safe and effective approach in posterior organ prolapse management. RVMRB provides comparable results in terms of recurrence and functional results, with avoidance of unabsorbable material implantation.

Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders better than laparoscopic approach at the beginning of the experience? A retrospective single-center study.

To compare perioperative results of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders at the beginning of the surgical experience. Between 2017 and 2022, the first 30 laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexies and the first 30 robotic ventral mesh rectopexies at the beginning of the experience of 2 surgeons were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative (demographic characteristics, surgical indication, conversion rate, operative time), and postoperative (complications, length of stay, unplanned reintervention) data were compared between groups. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Conversion rate was lower (0 vs 17%, p = 0.05), but the operative time was significantly longer (182 [146-290] vs 150 [75-240] minutes, p < 0.0001) during robotic procedure when compared with laparoscopic approach. In terms of learning curve, the number of procedures to obtain the same operative time between the 2 approaches was 15. Postoperative results were similar between groups, in terms of pain (visual analogic scale = 2 [0-8] vs 4 [0-9], p = 0.07), morbidity (17 vs 3%, p = 0.2), and unplanned reintervention (1 vs 0%, p = 0.99). Mean length of stay was significantly reduced after robotic approach when compared with laparoscopic approach (3 [2-10] vs 5 [2-11] days, p < 0.01). Functional results were better after robotic than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, with higher satisfaction rate (93 vs 75%, p = 0.05), and reduced recurrence rate (0 vs 14%, p = 0.048). Despite longer operative time at the beginning of the learning curve, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with similar or better perioperative results than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

Laparoscopic or transanal repair of rectocele? Comparison of a reduction in rectocele size.

This study aimed to compare the reduction in rectocele size after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) with that after transanal repair (TAR). Forty-six patients with rectocele who underwent LVR and 45 patients with rectocele who received TAR between February 2012 and December 2022 were included. This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. All patients had clinical evidence of a symptomatic rectocele. Bowel function was evaluated using the constipation scoring system (CSS) and fecal incontinence severity index (FISI). Substantial symptom improvement was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the CSS or FISI scores. Evacuation proctography was performed before surgery and 6months postoperatively. Constipation was substantially improved in 40-70% of the LVR patients and 70-90% of the TAR patients over 5years. Fecal incontinence was markedly improved in 60-90% of the LVR patients across 5years and in 75% of the TAR patients at 1year. Postoperative proctography showed a reduction in rectocele size in the LVR patients (30 [20-59] mm preoperatively vs. 11 [0-44] mm postoperatively, P < 0.0001) and TAR patients (33 [20-55] mm preoperatively vs. 8 [0-27] mm postoperatively, P < 0.0001). The reduction rate of rectocele size in the LVR patients was significantly lower than that in the TAR patients (63 [3-100] % vs. 79 [45-100] %, P = 0.047). The reduction in rectocele size was lower in the patients who underwent LVR than in those who received TAR.

Outcome of Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Management of internal Rectal Prolapse

Outcome of Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Management of internal Rectal Prolapse

A case of severe rectal prolapse managed via laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy with posterounilateral dissection and mesorectal promontofixation

A case of severe rectal prolapse managed via laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy with posterounilateral dissection and mesorectal promontofixation

Bandwagons in colorectal surgery.

Surgery, like other fields of medicine, has not been spared by a number of unfortunate phenomena. Although our perception may point at recent times, some trends can actually be traced back to 1979. Cohen and Rothschild stated that even when medical progress is extraordinary, the path has too often been driven by overwhelming acceptance of popular albeit unproven ideas. These are referred to as bandwagons. Some of such ideas were eventually proven as valid, but more often were abandoned and/or replaced by new bandwagons. In the specific case of colorectal surgery, there are at least five currently ongoing bandwagons: 1) laparoscopic lavage of perforated colon; 2) laparoscopic ventral rectopexy; 3) stapled hemorrhoidopexy, also known as procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH); 4) watch and wait; 5) transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). Preventing bandwagons from taking off requires efforts at different levels: 1) innovators must constrain their self-interest of fame and rather recognize the need for establishing evidence to support their ideas; 2) new treatment modalities must be carefully weighed by sufficiently powered clinical trials prior to been implemented on patients; 3) the media should not mislead patients into the "best" treatment without reliable evidence; 4) physicians should keep in mind that the process of innovation in medicine is slow and disregard the temptation to accept at face value perhaps plausible, yet unproven ideas.

Laparoscopic Suture versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for the surgical Treatment of Internal Rectal Prolapse

Laparoscopic Suture versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for the surgical Treatment of Internal Rectal Prolapse

Treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse after a laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

Treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse after a laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy plus sacral colpopexy: continuous locked suture for mesh fixation. A randomized clinical trial.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) plus sacral colpopexy (LSC) is a high-complexity surgical procedure. The aim of the present study was to evaluate a new approach to rectal-mesh fixation during LVR with continuous locked suture. This is a prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial enrolling 80 patients with severe POP and obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) from November 2016 to January 2021. Patients underwent a "two-meshes" LSC plus LVR and were randomized, regarding rectal mesh fixation, in Group A (extracorporeal interrupted 0 delayed absorbable sutures) and Group B ("U-shaped" running locked 0 delayed absorbable suture). Our primary endpoints were the operative times (OT); the secondary endpoints were the incidence of anatomical failures, vaginal mesh erosions and surgical complications. A total of 75 patients completed the study. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Overall OT (156 vs 138min; p < 0.05; treatment reduction of 11.5%) and LVR mesh fixation time (29 vs 16min; p < 0.05; treatment reduction of 44%), resulted in significantly lower in Group B. No differences were found in terms of anatomic failure, vaginal mesh erosion or intra- or post-operative complications. PGI-I, FSDS and Wexner questionnaires resulted significantly improved after surgery, without statistical differences between the studied surgical procedures. Laparoscopic continuous locked 0 absorbable suture for LVR mesh fixation guaranteed a faster and effective alternative to multiple interrupted sutures. The significant OT reduction linked to this technique should be considered even more helpful when performing a highly complex surgery such as LVR. NCT05254860 (13/02/2017).

Efficiency and safety of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (a systematic review)

Aim: to assess the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in patients with rectocele and rectal prolapse. Materials and methods: a systematic review of the literature on the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in patients with rectocele and/or rectal prolapse. After compiling a search query, 2716 publications were found in the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane library, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science and eLibrary databases. Twenty-four papers were selected according to the inclusion criteria for the review, with a total number of 2101 operated patients. Results: the follow up period after surgery ranged 30.1 (12-74) months. In 20 of 34 studies, the median age of patients was over 60 years, with a median of 62.1 years. The mean operative time was 122.3 minutes (85 to 200 minutes). Complications were revealed in 138 patients (6.5 % observations), recurrence — in 4.1 %. A significant improvement in the symptoms of obstructive defecation was noted in 79.6 %. Conclusion: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is an effective method for posterior pelvic floor compartment prolapse in terms of both anatomical and functional results. It is safe and has a low risk of complications. However, further research is required to develop indications for the use of this proctdure as a “gold standard”.

A quantitative study to explore functional outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

Rectal prolapse is a life-altering problem and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is emerging as the surgical intervention of choice. However, the literature is ambiguous on its effect on bowel function and sparse as regards bladder and sexual function. This study assesses short-term functional outcomes following LVMR. This quantitative retrospective study with a pretest-post-test design included 130 adults who had undergone LVMR from October 2010 to December 2018 in a tertiary centre. Analysis with paired-samples t-test and Wilcoxon matched pairs test was done using SPSS (v26). The median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 48-74 years); 123 (94.6%) were female. The median length of stay was two days (interquartile range, 1-2 days). A total of 104 (80%) sets of medical notes were reviewed. One patient had recurrence of rectal prolapse. Synthetic mesh was used in 24 patients (23.1%) and biological mesh in 80 (76.9%). One patient had extrusion of a synthetic mesh and required surgery; 31(23.8%) completed the Electronic Patient Assessment Questionnaire for Pelvic Floor. Overall, the improvement in bladder function was not statistically significant (p = 0.670). A statistically significant improvement was seen for all bowel symptoms (p = 0.002) excluding constipation (p = 0.295). Irritable bowel symptoms associated with rectal prolapse improved significantly following LVMR (p = 0.001). Vaginal prolapse (p < 0.0005), dyspareunia (p = 0.001) and bowel symptoms affecting sexual intercourse (p = 0.01) improved, but improvement in overall sexual function was not statistically significant (p = 0.081). LVMR improves bowel function overall, although it can worsen constipation. It has the potential to improve sexual function but makes negligible difference to bladder function.

Stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation

BackgroundThe effectiveness of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in patients with defecatory disorders secondary to internal rectal prolapse is poorly evidenced. A UK-based multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed to determine the clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls at medium-term follow-up.MethodsThe randomized controlled trial was conducted from March 1, 2015 TO January 31, 2019. A stepped-wedge RCT design permitted observer-masked data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR (controls) with those who had undergone surgery. Adult participants with radiologically confirmed IRP refractory to conservative treatment were randomized to three arms with different delays before surgery. Efficacy outcome data were collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 weeks). Clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls was defined as ≥ 1.0-point reduction in Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life and/or Symptoms (PAC-QOL and/or PAC-SYM) scores at 24 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included 14-day diary data, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), St Marks incontinence score, the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), the chronic constipation Behavioral Response to Illness Questionnaire (CC-BRQ), and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ).ResultsOf a calculated sample size of 114, only 28 patients (100% female) were randomized from 6 institutions (due mainly to national pause on mesh-related surgery). Nine were assigned to the T0 arm, 10 to T12, and 9 to T24. There were no substantial differences in baseline characteristics between the three arms. Compared to baseline, significant reduction (improvement) in PAC-QOL and PAC-SYM scores were observed at 24 weeks post-surgery (– 1.09 [95% CI – 1.76, – 0.41], p = 0.0019, and – 0.92 [– 1.52, – 0.32], p = 0.0029, respectively) in the 19 patients available for analysis (9 were excluded for dropout [n = 2] or missing primary outcome [n = 7]). There was a clinically significant long-term reduction in PAC-QOL scores (− 1.38 [− 2.94, 0.19], p = 0.0840 at 72 weeks). Statistically significant improvements in PAC-SYM scores persisted to 72 weeks (− 1.51 [− 2.87, − 0.16], p = 0.0289). Compared to baseline, no differences were found in secondary outcomes, except for significant improvements at 24 and 48 weeks on CC-BRQ avoidance behavior (− 14.3 [95% CI − 23.3, − 5.4], and − 0.92 [− 1.52, − 0.32], respectively), CC-BRQ safety behavior (− 13.7 [95% CI − 20.5, − 7.0], and − 13.0 [− 19.8, − 6.1], respectively), and BIPQ negative perceptions (− 16.3 [95% CI − 23.5, − 9.0], and − 10.5 [− 17.9, − 3.2], respectively).ConclusionsWith the caveat of under-powering due to poor recruitment, the study presents the first randomized trial evidence of short-term benefit of LVMR for internal rectal prolapse.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN11747152).