Ventral Mesh Rectopexy Research Articles

Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations

To assess the outcomes of rectal suspension procedures (forms of rectopexy) in adults with chronic constipation. 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. 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 3.5h, and length of stay between 4 to 5days. 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. Evidence supporting rectal suspension procedures is currently derived from poor quality studies. Methodologically robust trials are needed to inform future clinical decision making.

Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-institution experience.

Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) is an appealing approach for the treatment of rectal prolapse and other conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of RVMR for rectal prolapse. We performed a retrospective chart review for patients who underwent RVMR for rectal prolapse at our institution between July 2012 and May 2016. Any patient who underwent RVMR during this time frame was included in our analysis. Any cases involving colorectal resection or other rectopexy techniques were excluded. Of the 24 patients who underwent RVMR, 95.8% of patients were female. Median age was 67.5years old (IQR 51.5-73.3), and 79.2% of patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV. Median operative time was 191min (IQR 164.3-242.5), and median length of stay was 3days (IQR 2-3). There were no conversions, RVMR-related complications or mortality. Patients were followed for a median of 3.8 (IQR 1.2-15.9)months. Full-thickness recurrence occurred in 3 (12.4%) patients. Rates of fecal incontinence improved after surgery (62.5 vs. 41.5%, respectively) as did constipation (45.8 vs. 33.3%, respectively). No patients reported worsening symptoms postoperatively. Only one (4.2%) patient reported de novo constipation postoperatively. RVMR is a feasible, safe and effective option for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with low short-term morbidity and mortality. Multicenter and long-term studies are needed to better assess the benefits of this procedure.

Outcomes for Patients with apparent Chronic Idiopathic Pelvic Pain and associated Pelvic Floor Disorders undergoing Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy.

This article has been temporarily withdrawn, with the agreement of all authors and the journal editor, whilst an investigated is being carried out by the North Bristol NHS Trust and the General Medical Council following some concerns raised.

Rectal axis and enterocele on proctogram may predict laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy outcomes for rectal intussusception.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has become a well-established treatment for symptomatic high-grade internal rectal prolapse. The aim of this study was to identify proctographic criteria predictive of a successful outcome. One hundred and twenty consecutive patients were evaluated from a prospectively maintained pelvic floor database. Pre- and post-operative functional results were assessed with the Wexner constipation score (WCS) and Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI). Proctogram criteria were analyzed against functional results. These included grade of intussusception, presence of enterocele, rectocele, excessive perineal descent and the orientation of the rectal axis at rest (vertical vs. horizontal). Ninety-one patients completed both pre- and post-operative follow-up questionnaires. Median pre-operative WCS was 14 (range 10-17), and median FISI was 20 (range 0-61), with 28 patients (31%) having a FISI above 30. The presence of an enterocele was associated with more frequent complete resolution of obstructed defecation (70 vs. 52%, p=0.02) and fecal incontinence symptoms (71 vs. 38%, p=0.01) after LVMR. Patients with a more horizontal rectum at rest pre-operatively had significantly less resolution of symptoms post-operatively (p=0.03). These data show that proctographic findings can help predict functional outcomes after LVMR. Presence of an enterocele and a vertical axis of the rectum at rest may be associated with a better resolution of symptoms.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for obstructive defecation syndrome: still the way to go?

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) has become a popular surgical technique for treating women with full-thickness rectal prolapse with a low recurrence rate, as demonstrated by several studies. In addition, it is increasingly applied to female patients with obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) caused by intussusception ± rectocele. Functional improvement can be achieved in a high number of patients with ODS, but expectations need to be discussed carefully, as a few patients may not benefit at all. In particular, long-term data on functional outcome and complications following laparoscopic VMR for ODS are still lacking in the literature. Notably, laparoscopic VMR appears to be better than alternative operations for prolapse, intussusception, and rectocele in terms of efficacy, recurrence rates, and adverse effects, but there is a lack of evidence directly comparing techniques through randomized controlled trials; thus, its exact role stills needs to be defined in the future.

Knot free technique for Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy.

AimThe aim of our study was to describe and assess a new method of mesh fixation using clips in Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy (VMR). This technique avoids knots while suturing in pelvis and saves time.MethodA systematic search of the literature (PUBMED, EMBASE) was done to find out alternate ways to fix the mesh over the anterior surface of rectum. This technique has not been used before. We performed five operations using this technique. Indication for surgery was full thickness rectal prolapse in all of them. Majority of patients were female (four) and one was male with age range of 32–69 years. Two patients had previous abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic access included four ports and 30° scope in all cases. Biological mesh was used in 4 cases and synthetic in remaining one. Instead of using normal intra-corporeal or extra-corporeal suturing, a novel technique was used to secure the Ethibond 2/0 suture using endo clip. The mesh fixation to sacral promontory was done with tacker.ResultsThese patients were prospectively followed up to assess the effectiveness of repair and to assess for the recurrence. The median follow up so far is 8 months (range 5–11). None of the patients had any major complication. No patient has reported recurrence either.ConclusionOur study with limitations of small group and relatively shorter follow up has proven to be a safe technique. This technique has a potential of replacing intra or extracorporeal knot with endo clips and requires less time compared to conventional suturing. It also advantage of having a minimal learning curve.

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review.

PurposeThis review reports the incidence of mesh-related erosion after ventral mesh rectopexy to determine whether any difference exists in the erosion rate between synthetic and biological mesh.MethodsA systematic search of the MEDLINE and the Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2004 and 2015. The search strategy capture terms were laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy, robotic ventral rectopexy, and robotic anterior rectopexy.ResultsEight studies (3,956 patients) were included in this review. Of those patients, 3,517 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) using synthetic mesh and 439 using biological mesh. Sixty-six erosions were observed with synthetic mesh (26 rectal, 32 vaginal, 8 recto-vaginal fistulae) and one (perineal erosion) with biological mesh. The synthetic and the biological mesh-related erosion rates were 1.87% and 0.22%, respectively. The time between rectopexy and diagnosis of mesh erosion ranged from 1.7 to 124 months. No mesh-related mortalities were reported.ConclusionThe incidence of mesh-related erosion after LVR is low and is more common after the placement of synthetic mesh. The use of biological mesh for LVR seems to be a safer option; however, large, multicenter, randomized, control trials with long follow-ups are required if a definitive answer is to be obtained.

Robotic Modified Orr-Loygue Rectopexy for Internal and External Rectal Prolapse

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is the gold standard treatment for external rectal prolapse and an excellent treatment for symptomatic internal rectal prolapse. However, there is a recurrence rate for this procedure, part of which can be attributed to the untreated posterior rectal prolapse component.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs Delorme's operation in management of complete rectal prolapse: a prospective randomized study.

Various surgical operations have been devised for the treatment of rectal prolapse, yet no ideal procedure has been described. The present study aims to compare the clinical and functional outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and Delorme's operation for complete rectal prolapse. Fifty patients with complete rectal prolapse were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly selected to undergo either LVMR or Delorme's procedure after clinical, manometric and radiological evaluation. Patient characteristics, operative data, postoperative complications, recurrence of rectal prolapse and continence state were evaluated. Patients were followed for a mean duration of 18months. Thirty-one (62%) patients were women and 19 (38%) patients were men with a mean age of 39.7±6.9years. Patients were allocated into two equal groups: LVMR group and Delorme's group. Thirty-three (66%) complained of faecal incontinence preoperatively. Patients were followed for 18months. There was no major postoperative complication or treatment death. Improvement in continence was reported in 80.9% of patients (83.3% in group 1 vs 71.4% in group 2). Recurrent prolapse was observed in 16% of patients in group 2 and 8% in group 1 (P=0.66). The operation time was significantly greater in group 1 and the length of stay greater in group 2. There was no difference in the fall of constipation score between the groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of recurrence of complete rectal prolapse or postoperative improvement of symptoms between the two groups. Hospital stay was longer after Delorme's procedure but the operation time was shorter. Neither procedure proved definite superiority regarding the clinical and functional outcome at 18months of follow-up.

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

Aim Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has been used to treat rectal prolapse, obstructed defaecation (OD), faecal incontinence (FI) and multicompartment pelvic floor dysfunction. Its value in treating men has been questioned. The aim of the present study was to assess the results in male patients. Method A password-protected electronic database of all LVMRs carried out in North Bristol NHS trust & Spire hospital between 2002 and 2013 was examined. In addition to the clinical outcome, quality of life (QoL), Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) score, visual analogue score (VAS) for the severity of bowel and urinary symptoms and the numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain and patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated. Results Sixty-eight men of median age 35 years and body mass index 26 kg/m2 underwent LVMR for external rectal prolapse (18) or Grade III–V rectal intussusception (50) presenting with OD, FI and pelvic pain. Ten per cent had been labelled ‘chronic idiopathic pelvic pain’ and 60% had undergone previous haemorrhoidal surgery. Complications were minor and included urinary retention (10%). Eighty per cent of patients had an uncomplicated recovery with 24% being treated as day cases. There were no cases of impotence or retrograde ejaculation. Median follow-up was 42 (IQR 26–61) months. CCIS score improved from 4 (IQR 0–8) to 0 (IQR 0–0) (P < 0.001) and the ODS score from 18.5 (IQR 16–22) to 6 (IQR 5–8) (P < 0.001). Patients reported significant improvement in the NRS for pain and QoL (BBSQ-22) at 3 months (P = 0.000). The QoL and the VAS for bowel symptoms were maintained at 4 years. At the last follow-up 56 (82%) patients were asymptomatic and 6 (8.8%) had persisting symptoms. There was no case of recurrent external rectal prolapse. Conclusion LVMR is an effective treatment for external and symptomatic internal rectal prolapse in men, leading to significant improvement in QoL and function.

Internal rectal prolapse: Definition, assessment and management in 2016

Internal rectal prolapse (IRP) is a well-recognized pelvic floor disorder mainly seen during defecatory straining. The symptomatic expression of IRP is complex, encompassing fecal continence (56%) and/or evacuation disorders (85%). IRP cannot be characterized easily by clinical examination alone and the emergence of dynamic defecography (especially MRI) has allowed a better comprehension of its pathophysiology and led to the proposition of a severity score (Oxford score) that can guide management. Decision for surgical management should be multidisciplinary, discussed after a complete work-up, and only after medical treatment has failed. Information should be provided to the patient, outlining the goals of treatment, the potential complications and results. Stapled trans-anal rectal resection (STARR) has been considered as the gold standard for IRP treatment. However, inconsistent results (failure observed in up to 20% of cases, and fecal incontinence occurring in up to 25% of patients at one year) have led to a decrease in its indications. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy has substantial advantages in solving the functional problems due to IRP (efficacy on evacuation and resolution of continence symptoms in 65-92%, and 73-97% of patients, respectively) and is currently considered as the gold standard therapy for IRP once the decision to operate has been made.

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.

Bowel function after laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a double-blind, randomised single-centre study

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse has been widely used over the past decade to reduce postoperative functional bowel disorders. We aimed to compare changes in functional outcome 12 months after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy in patients with rectal prolapse. In this double-blind, randomised trial, consecutive patients aged 18 years or older at a single centre in Denmark with full-thickness rectal prolapse were randomly assigned (1:1) to either laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy or laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy by drawing numbers from opaque envelopes, in blocks of four for patients with or without preoperative constipation. Functional assessment was done preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was preoperative-to-postoperative change in obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) score. Patients and those assessing the outcomes were masked to the procedure. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population. Safety outcomes were assessed in the entire cohort. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00946205. From Nov 1, 2006, to Jan 31, 2014, 75 consecutive patients were assigned to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (n=37) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (n=38). Eight patients withdrew consent to follow-up, leaving 34 patients in the posterior sutured rectopexy group and 33 in the ventral mesh rectopexy groups for the primary analysis. The preoperative-to-postoperative reduction in ODS score was 1·97 (95% CI 0·01 to 3·93) in patients who received ventral mesh rectopexy and 2·18 (-0·14 to 4·49) in those who received posterior sutured rectopexy (difference -0·21 [-3·19 to 2·78]; p=0·890). Postoperative surgical complications of Clavien-Dindo grade II or worse were reported in one (3%) of 38 patients in the ventral mesh rectopexy group (ureteral injury resulting in urine leakage, and a psoas abscess) and one (3%) of 37 patients in the posterior sutured rectopexy group (haematoma and pelvic abscess). Two (5%) patients in the posterior sutured rectopexy group developed recurrence within 12 months compared with none in the ventral mesh rectopexy group (p=0·305). Functional outcome measured by preoperative-to-postoperative change in ODS score was not significantly superior in patients who underwent ventral mesh rectopexy compared with those who had posterior sutured rectopexy. Additional, large, randomised, multicentre studies with long-term outcomes are warranted. None.

Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse and enterocele: a randomized controlled trial.

The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to compare robot-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy procedures for posterior compartment procidentia in terms of restoration of the anatomy using magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography. Sixteen female patients (four with total prolapse, twelve with intussusception) underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and 14 female patients (two with prolapse, twelve with intussusception) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). Primary outcome measures were perioperative parameters, complications and restoration of anatomy as assessed by MR defaecography, which was performed preoperatively and 3months after surgery. Patient demographics, operation length, operating theatre times and length of in-hospital stay were similar between the groups. The anatomical defects of rectal prolapse, intussusception and rectocele and enterocele were similarly corrected after rectopexy in either technique as confirmed with dynamic MR defaecography. A slight residual intussusception was observed in three patients with primary total prolapse (two RVMR vs one LVMR) and in one patient with primary intussusception (RVMR) (P=0.60). Rectocele was reduced from a mean of 33.0±14.9mm to 5.5±8.4mm after RVMR (P<0.001) and from 24.7±17.5mm to 7.2±3.2mm after LVMR (P<0.001) (RVMR vs LVMR, P=0.10). Robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral rectopexy can be performed safely and within the same operative time as conventional laparoscopy. Minimally invasive ventral rectopexy allows good anatomical correction as assessed by MR defaecography, with no differences between the techniques.

Robot-Assisted Sacrocolporectopexy for Multicompartment Prolapse of the Pelvic Floor: A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluating Functional and Sexual Outcome.

Pelvic floor disorders are a major public health issue. For female genital prolapse, sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is a relatively new and promising technique correcting rectal prolapse. There is no literature combining the 2 robotically assisted techniques. This study was designed to evaluate the safety, quality of life, and functional and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for multicompartment prolapse of the pelvic floor. This was a prospective, observational cohort study. The study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. All sexually active patients undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy at our institution between 2012 and 2014 were included. Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy was the study intervention. Preoperative and postoperative (12 months) questionnaires using the Urinary Distress Inventory, Pescatori Incontinence Scale, Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire were completed. In addition Wexner and Vaizey incontinence scores and the Wexner constipation score were recorded postoperatively. Fifty-one patients underwent robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy (median follow-up, 12.5 months). The simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification improved significantly (p < 0.0005) for all 4 of the anatomic landmarks. Both median fecal (preoperative and postoperative Pescatori 4 vs 3, p = 0.002) and urinary incontinence scores (Urinary Distress Inventory, 27.8 vs 22.2; p < 0.0005) improved significantly at 12 months. Postoperatively median Wexner (3) and Vaizey incontinence (6) and Wexner Constipation (7) scores were noted. A positive effect on sexual function (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire score 31.8 vs 35.9; p = 0.002) and quality of life for each compartment (p < 0.0005) was observed. One patient (2%) developed mesh erosion. No multicompartment recurrences were detected. This was a observational study with a limited follow-up, no control group, and no preoperatively validated constipation score. Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy is a safe and effective technique for multicompartment prolapse in terms of functional outcome, quality of life, and sexual function.

Learning curves and surgical outcomes for proctored adoption of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: cumulative sum curve analysis.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is an effective and well-recognised treatment for symptoms of obstructive defecation in the context of rectal prolapse and recto-rectal intussusception. However, due to the technical complexity of VMR, a significant learning curve has been previously described. This paper examines the effect of proctored adoption of VMR on learning curves, operative times, and outcomes. A retrospective database analysis of two district general hospitals was conducted, with inclusion of all cases performed by two surgeons since first adoption of the procedure in 2007-2015. Operative time, length of stay, and in-hospital complications were evaluated, with learning curves assessed using cumulative sum curves. Three hundred and eleven patients underwent VMR during the study period and were included for analysis. Patients were near-equally distributed between surgeons (surgeon A: n=151, surgeon B, n=160) with no significant differences between gender, age, or ASA grade. In-hospital morbidity was 3.2%, with 0% mortality. Cumulative sum curve analysis suggested a change point of between 25 and 30 cases based on operative times and length of stay and was similar between both surgeons. No significant change point was seen for morbidity or mortality. VMR is an effective and safe treatment for rectal prolapse. Surgeons in this study were proctored during the adoption process by another surgeon experienced in VMR; this may contribute to increased safety and abbreviated learning curve. In the context of proctored adoption, this study estimates a learning curve of 25-30 cases, without detrimental impact on patient outcomes.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in complex pelvic floor disorder.

For the treatment of complex pelvic organ prolapse, many different surgical procedures are described without any comparative studies available. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy after D'Hoore is one of the methods, which is publicized to treat patients with symptomatic rectocele, enterocele and rectal prolapse. All patients who received ventral mesh rectopexy since 07/10 for symptomatic rectocele, enterocele and possible rectal prolapse I ° or II ° in terms of a complex pelvic floor disorder were included in this follow-up study. The Wexner score for incontinence was recorded (range 0-20), the constipation score of Herold (r6-30) was evaluated as well as supplementary questions compiled by D'Hoore concerning outlet symptoms (r0-20). In addition, the quality of life (SF-12) was requested. Thirty-one women were operated in the period, and 27 were eligible to be included in the present study. Median follow-up was 22months (2-39). The preoperative Wexner score was in median 8 (0-20), going down to 6 (0-20) without significance (p = 0.735). The constipation score decreased significantly from median 14 (9-21) to 11 (6-25) (p = 0.007). The median score after D'Hoore was preoperatively 8 (4-16) and 4.5 (0-17) postoperatively (p = 0.004). The SF-12 values were preoperatively significantly reduced compared to the normal population; postoperatively, they equalized. Two years after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, constipation and quality of life improve significantly in patients with complex pelvic organ prolapse. The grade of incontinence remains essentially the same, but was not the dominant clinical problem in the treated patients of our study. The improvement in constipation and quality of life after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for obstructive defecation is encouraging. However, the impact on sexual life differs; some patients improve but a relevant number reports a change for the worse.

High-grade hemorrhoids requiring surgical treatment are common after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

PurposeTo describe patients developing grade III and IV hemorrhoids requiring surgery after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and to explore the relationship between developing such hemorrhoids and recurrence of rectal prolapse after LVMR.MethodsAll consecutive patients receiving LVMR at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands, between 2004 and 2013 were analyzed. Kaplan–Meier estimates were calculated for recurrences.ResultsA total of 420 patients underwent LVMR. Sixty-five of these patients (actuarial 5-year incidence 24.3, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 18.6–30.0) developed symptomatic grade III/IV hemorrhoids requiring stapled or excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Re-do surgery for recurrent grade III/IV hemorrhoids was required for 15 of the 65 patients (actuarial 5-year recurrence rate 40.6, 95 % CI 23.2–58.0) after the primary hemorrhoidectomy. Three of the 65 patients developed an external rectal prolapse (ERP) recurrence and eight an internal rectal prolapse (IRP) recurrence. This generated a 5-year recurrence rate of 25.3 % (95 % CI 0–53.9) for ERP recurrence and 24.4 % (95 % CI 9.1–39.7) for IRP recurrence. The rest of the LVMR cohort not receiving additional surgery for hemorrhoids (n = 355) showed significantly lower actuarial 5-year ERP (0.8 %, p = 0.011) and IRP (11 %, p = 0.020) recurrence rates.ConclusionHigh-grade hemorrhoids requiring surgery may be common after LVMR. The development of high-grade hemorrhoids after LVMR might be considered a predictor of rectal prolapse recurrence.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy for Rectal Prolapse and Obstructed Defecation: Analysis of First 20 Cases at a UK District General Hospital

Introduction: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is gaining wider acceptance. The aim of this study is to present that LVMR can be learnt and safely performed with short term results similar to that of establish centres. Materials and Methods: All underwent anorectal physiology, defecation proctography, colon transit studies, colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy as appropriate and pelvic floor MDT and biofeedback. Patients with high grade intussusception who did not respond to laxatives and biofeedback were offered LVMR. Surgical technique was as described by D’Hoore et al. and performed by both authors. Data are presented as median, range and proportions. Results: Median age, ASA & BMI were 60.5 (34-78), 2 (1-3), 26.1 (20.4-33.1). Previous pelvic surgery included hysterectomy (35%), vaginal wall repair (15%) and rectal prolapse surgery (20%). 45% had Oxford prolapse grades 3/4 and rest were grade 5. Median operative time was 229 minutes (175-330). Synthetic mesh was used in 16 patients (Parietex 30%, TiLENE 50%) and Permacol in four (20%). 30 day mortality was zero. There were no conversions and overall complication rate was 10%.Sexual dysfunction was not reported. Median length of stay was 3 (2-6). 17 patients (85%) had 6 months or more follow up. Median patient reported outcome for satisfaction was 9.5 on a scale of 1 to 10 (2-10). Two patients developed recurrences of ODS at 6 and 12 months. Discussion and Conclusions: We suggest that experienced laparoscopic surgeons can learn and safely perform laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.