Search

Background: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is an established procedure in the treatment of posterior pelvic organ prolapse. It is still unclear whether this procedure can be performed safely in the elderly., Objective: This study aimed to assess the effects of age on the outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy performed for patients with pelvic organ prolapse., Design: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis with data from a national registry., Settings: The study was conducted in a tertiary care setting., Patients: Patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy were identified from discharge summaries. Patients were stratified according to age, including patients <70 (group A) and ≥ 70 (group B) years old., Main Outcome Measures: Variables analyzed included sex, age, diagnosis, associated pelvic organ prolapse, comorbidities, length of stay, complications (Clavien-Dindo scale), and mortality., Results: Among 4303 patients (98.2% women) who underwent a laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, 1263 (29.4%) were >70 years old (mean age, 76.2 ± 5.0 years). Main diagnoses were vaginal vault prolapse (53.0% [group A] vs 47.0% [group B]; p value not significant) and rectal prolapse (17.7 vs 26.8%; p value not significant). Comorbidity was significantly increased in group B (mean length of stay, 5.6 ± 3.6 vs 4.7 ± 1.8 days; p < 0.001) and minor complications (8.4% vs 5.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly increased in group B, whereas major complications were not different (group A, 0.7%; group B, 0.9%; p = 0.40) after univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis found no significant differences between groups. The subgroup analysis of patients >80 years old (n = 299) showed no differences. Each group had 1 postoperative mortality., Limitations: Limitations of the study include its retrospective design, lack of prestudy power calculation, possible inaccuracy of an administrative database, and selection bias., Conclusions: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy appears to be safe in select elderly patients.

Background: Fecal incontinence is a debilitating ailment, and surgery offers the only recourse for the patients in whom conservative treatment fails., Objective: This study aims to report the first matched comparison between patients implanted with the magnetic anal sphincter and the artificial bowel sphincter., Patients and Interventions: From December 2008 to June 2010, 10 female patients, median age 64.5 years (range, 42-76), with severe fecal incontinence for a median of 7.5 years (range, 1-40), were implanted with the magnetic anal sphincter. Ten female patients implanted with the artificial bowel sphincter were identified. Both groups were matched for age, etiology, duration of incontinence, and preoperative functional scores., Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes measures included length of hospitalization, complications, and changes in functional scores (anorectal physiology, incontinence, and quality of life)., Results: Patients with the magnetic anal sphincter had a shorter median operative time (62 vs 97.5 min, P = .0273), length of hospitalization(4.5 vs 10 days, P < .001), and follow-up duration (8 vs 22.5 mo, P = .0068), without a statistically significant difference in 30-day complications (4 vs 2, P = .628) and revision/explantation (1 vs 4, P = .830). Both groups achieved significant improvements in preoperative incontinence (P < .0002) and quality-of-life scores (P < .009). In a comparison of baseline resting anal pressures, patients with the artificial bowel sphincter had significantly higher pressures with the cuff inflated (P = .0082), and those with the magnetic anal sphincter had a significant increase as well (P = .0469). At the latest review, both groups had similar quality-of-life scores (P = .374); patients with the artificial bowel sphincter had higher (median) closed-cuff anal pressures compared with the anal resting pressure of those with a magnetic anal sphincter (89 vs 58.5 cmH2O, P = .0147), together with more constipation (4 vs 1, P = .830) and a trend toward better incontinence scores (P = .0625)., Limitations: This was a nonrandomized study with small patient numbers., Conclusion: In the short term, the magnetic anal sphincter is as effective as the artificial bowel sphincter in restoring continence and quality of life.

Background: Sacral nerve stimulation fails in 30% to 50% of patients, the outcome that remains largely unreported., Objective: We report on the management and outcome of this cohort of patients., Design and Interventions: Ninety-one patients (88 females) with fecal incontinence, median age 63 years (range, 37-81), were candidates for sacral nerve stimulation. The follow-up protocol comprised incontinence and quality-of-life scores., Main Outcome Measures: Failure was defined on an intention-to-treat basis: after the test (<50% decrease of fecal incontinence episodes) or after permanent implantation (Wexner score >8). Subsequent management and functional results were recorded., Results: The mean Wexner score for the cohort decreased from 14.3 at baseline to 7.6 after a median follow-up of 31 months (range, 11-69). Sixty-one (67.0%) patients were implanted with a permanent pacemaker; 36 (39.6%) achieved success (group 1). Failure after permanent implantation occurred in 25 (27.5%) patients after a mean of 34.5 months (group 2). Failure after the test occurred in 30 (33.0%) patients, 12 of whom underwent further surgery (group 3) (including stoma, 2; anal reconstruction, 9; and rectopexy, 1), whereas the remainder chose conservative treatment (group 4). At the end of follow-up, group 1 had significantly lower Wexner scores compared with the rest (P < .0001) and superior Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scores compared with groups 2 and 4 (P < .0001). Group 3 achieved a greater reduction in Wexner scores compared with groups 2 and 4 (P = .04), although the improvement in Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scores did not reach statistical significance., Limitations: This was a nonrandomized study with retrospective stratification of patients., Conclusions: On an intention-to-treat basis, success can be achieved in up to 40% of patients undergoing sacral nerve stimulation. In those in whom sacral nerve stimulation fails, further surgical treatment can yield favorable results in adequately motivated patients.

Purpose: The role of robotic assistance in pelvic floor prolapse surgery is debatable. This study aims to report our early experience of robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in the treatment of complex rectocele and to compare this with the laparoscopic approach in terms of safety and short-term postoperative outcomes., Methods: We analyzed a cohort of 63 consecutive patients operated on for complex rectocele from March 2008 to December 2009. A complex rectocele was defined as a rectocele that had one or more of the following features: larger than 3 cm in diameter, associated with an enterocele or internal rectal prolapse. The patients underwent either the robotic procedure or laparoscopic procedure, based only on the availability of the robotic system. Procedures involved either a single-mesh fixation for posterior-compartment prolapse (concurrent rectocele and enterocele) or a double-mesh fixation for a concurrent anterior compartment prolapse (with cystocele). A transvaginal tape was inserted at the same surgery in patients with urinary incontinence., Results: All patients were female; 40 underwent the laparoscopic procedure and 23 underwent the robotic procedure. Both groups were similar in age (mean, 59 ± 13 vs 61 ± 11; P = .440), ASA status, and previous abdominal surgery, respectively. Patients undergoing the robotic procedure had a significantly higher body mass index (mean, 27 ± 4 vs 24 ± 4; P = .03), more frequent double-mesh implantation (17/23 vs 14/40; P = .003), and longer operative time (mean, 221 ± 39 min vs 162 ± 60 min; P = .0001). Patients undergoing a laparoscopic procedure had slightly more blood loss (mean, 45 ± 91mL vs 6 ± 23 mL, P = .05). The number of transvaginal-tape procedures performed (6/40 vs 3/23, P > .999), conversion rate (10% vs 5%; P = .747), and duration of hospitalization were similar (mean, 5 ± 2 d vs 5 ± 1.6 d; P = .872). There were no mortalities or recurrences at the 6-month postoperative review., Conclusion: In our experience, the robotic approach for the treatment of complex rectocele is as safe as the laparoscopic approach, with favorable short-term results.