Functional results two years after laparoscopic rectopexy

BACKGROUND: Rectopexy is one of the accepted treatment options for full-thickness rectal prolapse, but the details of the technique remain controversial. This unit has adopted a laparoscopic approach as an alternative to open surgery, and has used three techniques: mesh, suture, and resection. This retrospective study compares the long-term outcome.METHODS: From 1993 to 1995, 14 patients underwent a laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. From 1996 to 1999, 34 patients underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy with (n = 18) or without sigmoid resection (n = 16). RESULTS: There was no postoperative mortality, and morbidity was similar in the three groups, ranging from 11 to 19%. The mean follow-up was 47, 24, and 20 months for mesh, suture, and resection rectopexy, respectively. During follow-up, 1 patient in each group developed mucosal prolapse. There was no difference between the three groups for incontinence rate, which improved in more than 75% of patients who had impaired continence preoperatively. Postoperative constipation was observed in 2 patients (11%) after resection rectopexy, in 10 (62%) after suture rectopexy (P < 0.01 versus resection), and in 9 (64%) after mesh rectopexy (P < 0.01 versus resection). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the addition of sigmoid resection to laparoscopic rectopexy is safe and could contribute to reduce the risk of severe constipation after operation. Laparoscopic mesh rectopexy confers no advantage over the sutured technique, which we now use as our fixation method of choice.     

Laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse: surgical technique

Technical features of laparoscopic rectopexy include complete rectal mobilization without division of the lateral stalks to avoid parasympathetic denervation and postoperative problems with defecation. Suture rectopexy is equally effective as posterior mesh rectopexy in preventing recurrences and eliminates the use of foreign material which is sometimes associated with intense fibrosis, sepsis and increased constipation. According to two randomised studies constipation seems to be less after resection rectopexy than suture or posterior mesh rectopexy alone perhaps by eliminating possible kinking at the rectosigmoid region by falling of the redundant sigmoid colon in the pouch of Douglas. Randomized studies are, however, needed to validate the need for colonic resection and to determine its optimal extent in patients who suffer from rectal prolapse, constipation and slow transit.     

Robot-assisted rectopexy and colpopexy for rectal prolapse

Aim

This video demonstrates a technique for robot-assisted combined rectopexy with colpopexy, but without the use of mesh for rectal prolapse.

Methods

This case features a 61-year-old woman who presents with complaints of tissue protruding through her rectum and fecal incontinence. On examination, she was found to have circumferential, full-thickness rectal prolapse and perineal descent. We present a technique that combines rectopexy with colpopexy without the use of mesh for repair of rectal prolapse. Postoperative examination revealed resolution of rectal prolapse and good perineal support. This video illustrates a technique that may serve as a useful adjunct to have in one’s surgical armamentarium in circumstances when mesh should not or cannot be used, such as in cases that require resection of the sigmoid colon or for patients who simply prefer to avoid the use of mesh.

Conclusion

Given that rectal prolapse and posthysterecomy vaginal vault prolapse often occur together, our institution routinely performs colpopexy with rectopexy for rectal prolapse to provide additional support to the pelvic floor as demonstrated in this video.     

Prosthetic rectopexy to the pelvic floor and sigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Full thickness rectal prolapse in young adults with normal pelvic floor is a disease in which the rectum is exceedingly long and mobile. Surgical treatment should correct both anatomical defects by combined rectopexy and colonic resection, which is expected to be less constipating than rectopexy alone. The aim of this study was to describe an original procedure of rectopexy to the pelvic floor with prosthetic material combined with sigmoid resection, and to evaluate prospectively anatomical and functional results. METHODS: Thirty-five patients (30 women) of median age 44 years (range 18 to 74) were operated on for full thickness rectal prolapse with normal pelvic floor. The rectum was mobilized posteriorly without division of the lateral ligaments and attached to the pelvic floor previously repaired with a nonabsorbable mesh. The sigmoid colon was resected with hand-sewn anastomosis. Clinical results were assessed by a questionnaire. RESULTS: There were no deaths or any septic or anastomotic complications. Small bowel obstruction was corrected laparoscopically in 1 patient. Mean hospital stay was 8 days (range 6 to 14). Mean follow-up was 34 months (range 10 to 93). No recurrence was seen. Preoperatively, 33 patients (94%) complained of constipation mainly with emptying problems (21 patients) and 25 patients (71.5%) were incontinent. Postoperatively, no constipated or incontinent patient's condition worsened. Rectal emptying was restored in 17 patients (81%). Eighteen incontinent patients (72%) regained full continence. On the other hand, 2 patients with normal bowel function worsened and 1 patient with an altered rectal compliance after Delorme's operation became incontinent. CONCLUSIONS: In young adults with rectal prolapse and normal pelvic floor undergoing prosthetic rectopexy and sigmoid resection (a) morbidity was low, (b) anatomical control was obtained in all cases, (c) emptying problems were corrected, and (d) deleterious effects are likely to occur if they had no constipation before operation or if rectal compliance was previously altered.     

Laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a single-institution retrospective study evaluating surgical outcome

Background The laparoscopic approach promises to become the gold standard for the transabdominal management of full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this study was to review our experience and to highlight the functional results achieved with this new technique.Methods Forty-eight patients with full-thickness external prolapse underwent laparoscopic repair between February 1997 and February 2003. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation of their rectal function. Patients with isolated rectal ulcer without prolapse or with internal prolapse and patients deemed by the anesthesiologist to be unfit for general anesthesia were excluded from the study. The laparoscopic technique was either a mesh rectopexy without resection (n = 35) or a suture rectopexy with sigmoid resection (n = 13). Patients with intractable constipation preceding the development of the rectal prolapse were advised to have a resection–rectopexy. In the postoperative follow-up, attention was paid to mortality, morbidity, recurrent prolapse, incontinence, and constipation. Follow-up was done by clinical review and postal questionnaire.Results There were no deaths and no septic or anastomotic complications. The postoperative morbidity rate was 5%. Oral intake was started on postoperative day 1. Discharge from the hospital was on postoperative day 4 in patients without sigmoid resection and on postoperative day 7 in patients with sigmoid resection. Two patients (4%) developed recurrent total prolapse during a median follow-up period of 36 ± 15 months (range, 7–77). The functional results were good or excellent in 72% of the cases, without digitations or dyschesia. Continence was improved in 31% of the patients and remains unchanged in 64% of them. In 11 patients (23%), constipation was worsened by the procedure.Conclusion Laparoscopic rectopexy with or without resection is both safe and effective. Advantages include low-morbidity, improved cosmesis, the rapid return of intestinal function, early discharge from hospital, and a low recurrence rate. The fecal continence score is improved; however, constipation is frequently worsened.This work is dedicated to the memory of Gerard Trebuchet, a highly influential French surgeon remembered for his implementation of several techniques for laparoscopic colon resection. Gerard Trebuchet died in Rennes, Frence, on 1 September 2003, at the age of 59 years.     

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction

Objective Whilst trans‐abdominal fixation +/? resection offers better functional results and lower recurrence than perineal procedures, mesh rectopexy is complicated by constipation. Laparoscopic autonomic nerve‐sparing, ventral rectopexy allows correction of the underlying abnormalities of the rectum, vagina, bladder and pelvic floor. Method A prospective database was used to audit our 7‐year experience of this technique. The recto‐vaginal septum was mobilized anteriorly to the pelvic floor avoiding nerve damage. A prolene mesh was sutured to the ventral rectum, posterior vagina and vaginal fornix and secured to the sacral promontory. Patients were assessed with questionnaires and Cleveland Clinic scores. Results Eighty patients, six males, median age 59 years (range 31–90) underwent laparoscopic prolapse surgery between Jan 1997 and Dec 2005; 55% had full thickness prolapse and 46% rectal anal intussusception. Five had a solitary rectal ulcer. A total of 58% had undergone previous surgery; hysterectomy 33%, posterior colporrhaphy 15%, posterior rectopexy 6%, Delorme's rectal mucosectomy 5% and Birch colposuspension 3%. Half (54%) were incontinent (mean Wexner score 11, range 2–17) and 31% reported symptoms of obstructed defecation; seven had slow transit constipation and underwent resection. The median operative time was 125 min (range 50–210) with one conversion. Median time to diet was 12 h and median length of stay 3 days (1–12). No patient has developed recurrent full thickness prolapse at a median follow‐up of 54 months (30–96). Incontinence improved in 39 of 43 patients (91%); median post‐operative Wexner score 1 (0–9). Obstructed defecation resolved in 20 of 25 patients (80%). Pelvic pain resolved in all but one. Complications occurred in 21%; faecal impaction 4%, wound infection 2%, bleeding 2%, leak 1%, chest infection 1%, retention 1%. Three developed minor evacuatory difficulties and two, urinary stress incontinence. Conclusion Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is safe with relatively low morbidity. In the medium‐term, it provides good results for prolapse and associated symptoms of incontinence and obstructed defecation.     

腹腔镜直肠悬吊固定术治疗直肠重度脱垂

目的探讨腹腔镜直肠悬吊固定术治疗直肠脱垂的临床应用价值。方法1998年3月至2007年2月,对4例完全性直肠脱垂患者进行了腹腔镜直肠悬吊固定术。1例采用缝合固定法,将直肠后壁分离、提高,用丝线缝闭直肠前陷凹,并将直肠后壁悬吊固定于骶骨岬前筋膜上,再将乙状结肠缝合固定在左侧腰大肌筋膜。3例采用网片固定法,将直肠游离到肛提肌水平,用1张6cm×9cm的T字型聚丙烯网片置于直肠后方,网片下缘在肛提肌水平环绕直肠,在直肠前方用丝线缝合网片和直肠浆肌层,再将网片上端在直肠后用疝修补钉夹固定于骶骨岬前筋膜,缝合关闭盆底腹膜。再将乙状结肠缝合固定在左侧腰大肌筋膜。结果4例患者手术均顺利,无中转开腹者。手术时间92.5(80-100)min,出血量6.5(5～10)ml。无并发症发生。术后尿失禁和肛门失禁的症状缓解,术后随访2个月至3年均未见复发与便秘出现。结论腹腔镜下行腹腔镜直肠悬吊固定术创伤小、恢复快和安全有效。     

Resection rectopexy for external rectal prolapse reduces constipation and anal incontinence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The main aim was to examine constipation and anal incontinence in patients before and after resection for external rectal prolapse. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients had ligament preserving suture rectopexy and sigmoid resection (resection rectopexy) for external rectal prolapse by laparoscopic (n = 15) or open (n = 5) technique during 2001-2005. They were prospectively evaluated for constipation and anal incontinence using validated incontinence and KESS-constipation scores. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Constipation score was significantly reduced from mean 7.7 (5.4-9.9) to 4.5 (2.5-6.4) after median 4 months (1-19) and to 4.3 (2.2-6.3) after median 17 months (4-51). Six and four patients were constipated preoperatively and 17 months postoperatively, respectively. The four symptoms feeling incomplete evacuation of stool, minutes in lavatory per attempt, use of enemas/digitation and painful evacuation effort were significantly reduced, whilst stool consistency increased. Fourteen patients (70%) had anal incontinence. Corresponding and significant reduction in their scores were from mean 12.5 (9.4-15.5) to 5.1 (2.1-8.1) and to 3.6 (1.3-5.9). Incontinence was improved in 13 and unaltered in one patient(s). Two patients with worse outcome had increased stool consistency and constipation scores. Resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse reduced anal incontinence and constipation.     

Laparoscopic rectopexy without resection: a worthwhile treatment for rectal prolapse in patients without prior constipation

Anterior resection with rectopexy is considered by many to be the best operation for rectal prolapse. It is feared that if sigmoid redundancy created by rectal mobilization is not resected, colonic motility (specifically constipation) could be disabling. We contend that resection is not necessary in patients without preexisting constipation. We tested this hypothesis using a laparoscopic approach to minimize hospital stay. Twelve patients were treated (eight women); mean age was 45 years (range, 25-82 years). No patient had preexisting constipation; one had irritable bowel syndrome. Three patients had prior prolapse operations. Full rectal mobilization was undertaken down to the levator hiatus; neither the mesenteric vessels nor the lateral ligaments were divided. Rectopexy to the presacral fascia was done with one to two Nurolon sutures on either side of the rectum. There were no complications; mean hospital stay was 4 days. Mean follow up was 32 months (range; 3-75 months); there have been no recurrences. Only the patient with irritable bowel syndrome developed significant constipation. We conclude: 1) rectopexy can be safely done laparoscopically, 2) resection is not required in the absence of prior constipation, and 3) rectal mobilization and rectopexy does not predispose to future constipation in these selected patients.     

Sutured posterior abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy compared with Marlex rectopexy for rectal prolapse

Two treatment policies for rectal prolapse were prospectively assessed between April 1986 and January 1989. Sixteen patients had a Marlex mesh posterior rectopexy alone and 13 underwent a sigmoidectomy combined with a sutured posterior rectopexy. Preoperative and post-operative assessment included manometry, a saline infusion test and video-proctography. Hospital stay, control of prolapse and complications were comparable in both groups. Restoration of continence occurred in nine of the 12 incontinent patients after Marlex rectopexy, compared with six of nine after sutured rectopexy and sigmoidectomy. Constipation persisted in three patients who were constipated before operation and in four of 13 who had previously normal bowel habits became constipated after Marlex rectopexy; constipation persisted in one of five previously constipated patients while none with previously normal bowel habits became constipated after sutured rectopexy and sigmoidectomy. Sigmoidectomy combined with sutured rectopexy was safe and as efficient as Marlex rectopexy in prolapse control and improvement of continence; significantly fewer patients were constipated (one of 13) after sigmoidectomy than following rectopexy alone (seven of 16). A randomized trial now seems justified.     

Abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparison of techniques.

To compare the methods of abdominal rectopexy and to elucidate the mechanism by which rectopexy restores continence in patients with rectal prolapse, the role of sphincter recovery, rectal morphological changes and improved rectal sensation were assessed in 68 patients (eight men, 60 women) of median age 63 (range 18-83) years undergoing resection rectopexy (n = 29), anterior and posterior Marlex rectopexy (n = 20), posterior Ivalon rectopexy (n = 9) or suture rectopexy (n = 10). Preoperative and postoperative manometry, radiology and electrosensitivity measurements were made. Age and duration of follow-up were similar in all groups and the prolapse was controlled in all patients. Significantly improved continence was seen in all but the Ivalon group. There was no evidence of increasing postoperative constipation. Sphincter length and voluntary contraction were unaltered, but improved resting tone was seen in the resection and suture groups. This was not seen in the prosthetic groups. Improved continence correlated with recovery of resting pressure. Upper and sensation was improved in all groups. Radiological changes did not correlate with improved continence. We conclude that continence is improved by all rectopexy procedures but seems better without prosthetic material. Sphincter recovery seems to be the most important factor.     

The role of colorectal resection in severe constipation after promontory rectopexy

Abdominal rectopexy to the promontory is an effective treatment for total rectal prolapse, internal procidentia and solitary ulcer. This paper is designed to stress the risk of severe constipation following rectopexy, a complication which required surgical resection in 5 cases. This raises the problems of the physiological mechanisms of this complication, the definition of a possible high risk population (young women, patients who were constipated preoperatively?), and an alternative to promontory rectopexy: sacral fixation of the rectum, associated sigmoidectomy, Delorme's operation?     

Laparoscopic Management of Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse can be a disabling condition for those affected. Treatment has historically been by transanal or abdominal approaches, with transanal approaches tending to have lower morbidity, and abdominal approaches having lower recurrence rates. With the advent of laparoscopy, many of the numerous described abdominal operations have been reported with a minimally invasive approach. Although few randomized data exist, laparoscopic operations appear to provide equal rectal fixation to open surgery, with less morbidity. Coexistent symtoms such as fecal incontinence and constipation must be evaluated before surgery, so that the operation can be tailored to the needs of the individual patient. Patients with severe constipation are often offered a concomitant sigmoid resection, although this does increase the potential for complications. Patients with incontinence, diarrhea, or otherwise normal function can be offered a rectopexy without resection. This study was presented at the ASCRS/SSAT symposium on minimally invasive management of rectal diseases, DDW, Los Angeles, May 2006     

Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND: Postoperative constipation is a common problem with most mesh suspension techniques used to correct rectal prolapse. Autonomic denervation of the rectum subsequent to its complete mobilization has been suggested as a contributory factor. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcome of patients who underwent a novel, autonomic nerve-sparing, laparoscopic technique for rectal prolapse. METHODS: Between 1995 and 1999, 42 patients had laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. The long-term results after a median follow-up of 61 (range 29-98) months were analysed. RESULTS: There were no major postoperative complications. Late recurrence occurred in two patients. In 28 of 31 patients with incontinence there was a significant improvement in continence. Symptoms of obstructed defaecation resolved in 16 of 19 patients. During follow-up, new onset of mild obstructed defaecation was noted in only two patients. Symptoms suggestive of slow-transit colonic obstipation were not induced. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is an effective technique for the correction of rectal prolapse and appears to avoid severe postoperative constipation. The ventral position of the prosthesis may explain the beneficial effect on symptoms of obstructed defaecation.     

Traitement du prolapsus rectal complet par rectopexie au plancher pelvien avec prothèse et résection du sigmoïde. Résultats anatomocliniques d'une étude prospective

Background, aim of the studyFull thickness rectal prolapse in young adults with normal perineal structures is a disease of the rectum which is exceedingly long and mobile. Surgical treatment should correct both anatomical defects by combined rectopexy and colonic resection, expected to be less constipating than rectopexy alone. The aim of this study was to describe an original procedure of rectopexy to the pelvic floor with prosthetic material combined with sigmoid resection, and to evaluate prospectively anatomical and functional results.Patients and methodsTwenty patients (16 women and four men) of median age 41 years were operated on for full thickness rectal prolapse with normal perineal structures. The rectum was mobilised posteriorly without division of the lateral ligaments and attached to the pelvic floor previously repaired, with a semi-absorbable prosthesis. The sigmoid colon was resected with hand-sewn anastomosis. Clinical results were assessed by a questionnaire.ResultsThere were no deaths or any septic or anastomotic complications. Small bowel obstruction was corrected laparoscopically in one patient. Mean hospital stay was 8.7 days. Mean follow up was 30 (range 9–75) months. No recurrence was seen. Pre-operatively, 18 patients (90%) complained of constipation mainly with emptying problems (15 patients) and 13 patients (65%) were incontinent. Post-operatively, no constipated or incontinent patient's condition worsened. Rectal emptying was restored in 13 patients (86.5%). Eight incontinent patients (61.5%) regained full continence. On the other hand, two patients with normal bowel function worsened and one patient with an altered rectal compliance after Delorme's operation became incontinent.ConclusionsIn young adults with rectal prolapse and normal perineal structures undergoing prosthetic rectopexy and sigmoid resection: a) morbidity was low, b) anatomical control was obtained in all cases, c) emptying problems were corrected, d) deleterious effects are likely to occur if they had no constipation before operation or if rectal compliance was previously altered.     

The effect of abdominal ventral rectopexy on faecal incontinence and constipation in patients with internal intra‐anal rectal intussusception

Aim Optimal treatment of anal incontinence in a patients with a normal anal sphincter is controversial, as is the role of intra‐anal rectal intussusception in anal incontinence. We evaluated the results of abdominal ventral rectopexy on anal continence in such patients. Method Forty consecutive patients with incontinence and intra‐anal rectal intussusception without a sphincter defect were treated by abdominal ventral mesh rectopexy without sigmoidectomy. The Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), patient satisfaction and constipation before and after surgery and recurrence were recorded. Results The mean CCI scores were 13.2 (=/?4.25) preoperatively and 3 (±3.44) postoperatively (P<0.0001). Patient assessment was reported as ‘cured’ in 26 (65%), ‘improved’ in 13 (32.5%) and ‘unchanged’ in one (2.5%) patient. Constipation was induced in two (5%) patients and was cured in 13 of 20 (65%) patients who were constipated before surgery. One case of recurrent prolapse occurred after a mean follow‐up of 38 months. Conclusion Intra‐anal rectal intussusception may be associated with anal incontinence. For these patients, abdominal ventral mesh rectopexy appears to be an adequate treatment.     

Ventral rectopexy for rectal procidentia

The main objective of this section is a detailed review of the new approach to rectal procidentia: minimally invasive nerve-sparing ventral rectopexy, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR), robotic ventral rectopexy (RVR), and its contextual relevance in the surgical treatment of rectal and pelvic organ prolapse. A brief review of rectal prolapse is offered outlining the main perineal and abdominal surgical approaches to its treatment. Further details regarding LVR and its effectiveness in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, fecal incontinence, and constipation will be reviewed as it applies to external rectal prolapse (ERP) and internal rectal prolapse (IRP). Details regarding the implications of the type of mesh used and complication profile will be covered.     

Rectal prolapse: which surgical option is appropriate?

Numerous surgical procedures have been suggested to treat rectal prolapse. In elderly and high-risk patients, perineal approaches such as Delorme’s procedure and perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier’s procedure) have been preferred, although the incidence of recurrence and the rate of persistent incontinence seem to be high when compared with transabdominal procedures. Functional results of transabdominal procedures, including mesh or suture rectopexy and resection–rectopexy, are thought to be associated with low recurrence rates and improved continence. Transabdominal procedures, however, usually imply rectal mobilization and fixation, colonic resection, or both, and some concern is voiced that morbidity, in terms of infection or leakage, and mortality could be increased. If we focus on surgical outcome, our own experience of laparoscopic resection–rectopexy for rectal prolapse shows that the laparoscopic approach is safe and effective, and functional results with respect to recurrence are favorable. However, the controversy “which operation is appropriate?” cannot be answered definitely, as a clear definition of rectal prolapse, the extent of a standardized diagnostic assessment, and the type of surgical procedure have not been identified in published series. Randomized trials are needed to improve the evidence with which the optimal surgical treatment of rectal prolapse can be defined.     

Rectal prolapse in adults--causes, diagnostic, treatment

Despite progress in modern surgery, the choice of the surgical procedure of rectal prolapse is regarded with controversy. Selection criteria between the abdominal or perineal approach or between rectopexy and resection rectopexy are not yet proven. This article gives a review of the literature about rectal prolapse and an analysis of the outcome of posterior rectopexy and resection rectopexy--partly conventionally and partly laparoscopically--in 25 patients with rectal prolapse III degrees and IV degrees. All except for one patient were examined during a mean follow-up of 5.5 (3.1) years for the rectopexy group and 2.1 (0.7) years for the resection rectopexy group. Recurrence occurred in one patient in each group respectively. There was no significant difference concerning the continence function (p = 0.32) and constipation (p = 0.36) between both groups. No mesh-related complications such as infection, fistula or rectum stenosis were observed. According to the review of the literature and our data, we believe that the choice of the operative procedure for rectal prolapse should be based on individual criteria. Fit patients should be offered laparoscopic procedures such as resection rectopexy and rectopexy without colonic resection.