Search

Background: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is being increasingly performed internationally to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. Robotic assistance appears advantageous for this procedure, but literature regarding robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is limited., Objective: The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in the largest consecutive series of patients to date., Design: This study is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of prospectively collected data., Settings: The study was conducted in a tertiary referral center., Patients: All of the patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse syndromes between 2010 and 2015 were evaluated., Main Outcome Measures: Preoperative and postoperative (mesh and nonmesh) morbidity and functional outcome were analyzed. The actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: A total of 258 patients underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (mean ± SD follow-up = 23.5 ± 21.8 mo; range, 0.2 - 65.1 mo). There were no conversions and only 5 intraoperative complications (1.9%). Mortality (0.4%) and major (1.9%) and minor (<30 d) early morbidity (7.0%) were acceptably low. Only 1 (1.3%) mesh-related complication (asymptomatic vaginal mesh erosion) was observed. A significant improvement in obstructed defecation (78.6%) and fecal incontinence (63.7%) were achieved for patients (both p < 0.0005). At final follow-up, a new onset of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation was induced or worsened in 3.9% and 0.4%. The actuarial 5-year external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse recurrence rates were 12.9% and 10.4%., Limitations: This was a retrospective study including patients with minimal follow-up. No validated scores were used to assess function. The study was monocentric, and there was no control group., Conclusions: Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is a safe and effective technique to treat rectal prolapse syndromes, providing an acceptable recurrence rate and good symptomatic relief with minimal morbidity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A427.

Purpose: To 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., Methods: All 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., Results: A 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., Conclusion: High-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.

Background: Laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) are favored for the treatment for rectal prolapse (RP) in the USA and Europe, respectively. This study aims to compare these two surgical techniques., Methods: All patients who underwent LRR because of RP between January 2000 and January 2012 at Cleveland Clinic Florida (Weston, FL, USA) were identified, and all relevant characteristics were entered in a database. This same analysis was also conducted for all patients who underwent LVR in the Meander Medical Center (Amersfoort, the Netherlands) between January 2004 and January 2012. These two cohorts were retrospectively compared with regard to complications, functional results and recurrence., Results: Twenty-eight patients (all female, mean age 50.1 years) were included in the LRR cohort at a mean follow-up of 57 (range 2-140; standard deviation (SD) ± 41.2) months. The LVR group consisted of 40 patients (36 females and 4 males) with a mean age of 67.0 years and a mean follow-up of 42 (range 2-82; SD ± 23.8) months. A significant reduction in constipation was observed in both cohorts after surgery: 57 versus 21% after LRR and 55 versus 23% after LVR (both P < 0.05). The incidence of incontinence also significantly decreased in both groups: 15% after LVR (55% before surgery) and 4% after LRR (61 % before surgery). Direct comparison of these two techniques showed a trend to significance (P = 0.09). Significantly, more complications occurred after LRR (n = 9: 1 major, 8 minor) then after LVR (n = 3: 2 major, 1 minor) (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Both LVR and LRR are effective for the treatment for RP. Although both techniques offer significant improvements in functional symptoms, continence may be better after LRR. However, LRR also had a higher complication rate then did LVR.

Aim: This retrospective study aimed to determine functional results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for rectal prolapse (RP) and symptomatic rectoceles in a large cohort of patients., Method: All patients treated between 2004 and 2011 were identified. Relevant patient characteristics were gathered. A questionnaire concerning disease-related symptoms as well as the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS) and Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) was sent to all patients., Results: A total of 245 patients underwent operation. Twelve patients (5%) died during follow-up and were excluded. The remaining patients (224 women, nine men) were sent a questionnaire. Indications for LVR were external RP (n = 36), internal RP or symptomatic rectocele (n = 157) or a combination of symptomatic rectocele and enterocele (n = 40). Mean age and follow-up were 62 years (range 22-89) and 30 months (range 5-83), respectively. Response rate was 64% (150 patients). The complication rate was 4.6% (11 complications). A significant reduction in symptoms of constipation or obstructed defaecation syndrome was reported (53% of patients before vs 19% after surgery, P < 0.001). Mean CCCS during follow-up was 8.1 points (range 0-23, SD ± 4.3). Incontinence was reported in 138 (59%) of the patients before surgery and in 32 (14%) of the patients after surgery, indicating a significant reduction (P < 0.001). Mean CCIS was 6.7 (range 0-19, SD ± 5.2) after surgery., Conclusion: A significant reduction of incontinence and constipation or obstructed defaecation syndrome after LVR was observed in this large retrospective study. LVR therefore appears a suitable treatment for RP and rectocele with and without associated enterocele., (Colorectal Disease © 2013 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Aim: Validated guidelines for the surgical and non-surgical treatment of rectal prolapse (RP) do not exist. The aim of this international questionnaire survey was to provide an overview of the evaluation, follow-up and treatment of patients with an internal or external RP., Method: A 36-question questionnaire in English about the evaluation, treatment and follow-up of patients with RP was distributed amongst surgeons attending the congresses of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and the European Society of Coloproctology in 2010. It was subsequently sent to all the members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the European Society of Coloproctology by e-mail., Results: In all, 391 surgeons in 50 different countries completed the questionnaire. Evaluation, surgical treatment and follow-up of patients with RP differed considerably. For healthy patients with an external RP, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was the most popular treatment in Europe, whereas laparoscopic resection rectopexy was favoured in North America. There was consensus only on frail and/or elderly patients with an external prolapse, with a preference for a perineal technique. After failure of conservative therapy, internal RP was mostly treated by laparoscopic resection rectopexy in North America. In Europe, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection were the most popular techniques for these patients., Conclusion: The treatment of RP differs between surgeons, countries and regions. Guidelines are lacking. Prospective comparative studies are warranted that may result in universally accepted protocols., (© 2012 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2012 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) is an established technique for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Several techniques and devices can be used for proximal mesh fixation on the sacral promontory during this procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the fixation strength of a recently introduced screw for mesh fixation on the promontory during LVR with two other frequently used techniques., Methods: An ex vivo experimental model using a porcine spinal column was designed to measure the strength of proximal mesh fixation. In a laparoscopic box trainer, a polypropylene mesh was anchored on the spinal column using three different fixation methods, i.e., the Protack 5-mm tacker device, Ethibond Excel 2-0 stitches, and the Karl Storz screw. Subsequently, increasing traction was applied to the mesh. This traction was applied at a standardized angle as determined by measuring the mean angle between the site of distal mesh fixation on the rectum and a line straight through the sacral promontory on 12 random dynamic MR scans of the pelvic floor after the LVR procedure. The applied force was measured at the moment that the fixation broke, using a calibrated electronic Newton meter. All fixation methods were tested ten times., Results: The mean angle, as measured on the MR scans, was 100°. The mean disruption force, which led to a break of the proximal mesh fixation, was 58 N for the three Protack tacks, 55 N for the two stitches, and 70 N for the new screw. The use of a screw therefore led to a significantly stronger fixation compared to the use of stitches (p ≤ 0.05). No significant difference was determined between the tacks and the screw fixation and between the tacks and the stitches fixation., Conclusion: The new screw for proximal mesh fixation during LVR procedures offers similar fixation strength when compared to tacks. The use of one screw for proximal mesh fixation is therefore a reasonable alternative to the use of several tacks or sutures.