Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · International Journal of Recent Surgical and Medical Sciences 2023; 09(01): 059-069
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1743451
Case Report

Assessment of Laparoscopic Posterior Mesh Rectopexy for Complete Rectal Prolapse: A Case Series with Review of Literature

Vishal Chawda
1   Department of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Dr L H Hiranandani Hospital, Powai, Mumbai, India
,
Abhijit Joshi
1   Department of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Dr L H Hiranandani Hospital, Powai, Mumbai, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Trans-abdominal rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse (CRP) reportedly yields more definitive results as compared with trans-perineal surgery. In the era of minimal access surgery, minimally invasive laparoscopic rectopexy has become a popular treatment option for patients with rectal prolapse (RP). Herein, we describe our preferred surgical procedure for the correction of RP and evaluate its results. We further aim to perform a comparative assessment between perioperative outcomes achieved with open and laparoscopic applications of this technique.

Materials and methods This was a retrospective cross-sectional observational study conducted at a tertiary health care center in Maharashtra, India. We studied cases of RP who underwent laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy during the past 15 years (2005–2021), in our institution, operated upon by a single surgeon.

Results Of the total 14 patients, 12 were managed with laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. The remaining two underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy. The mean operative time was 120 minutes. Constipation improved among 28.57%, remained the same among 21.42%, and worsened among 35.71% patients. No intra-operative blood transfusion was required. Mean length of hospital stay was 4 days. There were no recurrences over a mean follow-up period of 94 months, i.e., 7.83 years (range 7–197 months).

Conclusions Laparoscopic posterior rectopexy can be safely performed in older patients to achieve early postoperative ambulation and significantly shorten the hospital stay. It may, therefore, be considered an effective treatment for CRP and urinary dysfunction. However, the incidence of de-novo constipation and worsening of pre-existing constipation is significantly high.

Keywords

rectal prolapse - fecal incontinence - laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy


Publication History

Article published online:
19 March 2022

© 2022. Medical and Surgical Update Society. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Senapati A, Gray RG, Middleton LJ. et al; PROSPER Collaborative Group. PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15 (07) 858-868
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Formijne Jonkers HA, Poierrié N, Draaisma WA, Broeders IA, Consten EC. FormijneJonkers HA. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and symptomatic rectocele: an analysis of 245 consecutive patients. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15 (06) 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 van der Schans EM, Paulides TJC, Wijffels NA, Consten ECJ. Management of patients with rectal prolapse: the 2017 Dutch guidelines. Tech Coloproctol 2018; 22 (08) 589-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gallo G, Martellucci J, Pellino G. et al. Consensus Statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 2018; 22 (12) 919-931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Stevenson ARL. What does the future hold for ventral rectopexy?: Functional outcome after laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: six-year follow-up of a double-blind, randomised single-centre study. EClinicalMedicine 2019; 16: 2-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chandra A, Kumar S, Maurya AP, Gupta V, Gupta V. Rahul, Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse: a retrospective study evaluating outcomes in North Indian population. World J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 8 (04) 321-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fleming FJ, Kim MJ, Gunzler D, Messing S, Monson JR, Speranza JR. It's the procedure not the patient: the operative approach is independently associated with an increased risk of complications after rectal prolapse repair. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14 (03) 362-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Varma M, Rafferty J, Buie WD. Standards Practice Task Force of American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Practice parameters for the management of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 2011; 54 (11) 1339-1346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 D'Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 2004; 91 (11) 1500-1505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hashida H, Sato M, Kumata Y. et al. Usefulness of laparoscopic posterior rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse: a cohort study. Int J Surg 2019; 72: 109-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dyrberg DL, Nordentoft T, Rosenstock S. Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse is a safe procedure in older patients: a prospective follow-up study. Scand J Surg 2015; 104 (04) 227-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bjerke T, Mynster T. One decade of rectal prolapse surgery: a national study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2018; 33 (03) 299-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Flynn J, Larach JT, Kong JCH, Warrier SK, Heriot A. Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021; 36 (08) 1621-1631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hyun K, Yoon SG. Comparison of Delorme-Thiersch operation outcomes in men and women with rectal prolapse. Ann Coloproctol 2019; 35 (05) 262-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fu CW, Stevenson AR. Risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60 (02) 178-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rautio T, Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Vaarala M. et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in male patients with external rectal prolapse is associated with a high reoperation rate. Tech Coloproctol 2016; 20 (10) 715-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Laitakari KE, Mäkelä-Kaikkonen JK, Kairaluoma M. et al. Redo ventral rectopexy: is it worthwhile?. Tech Coloproctol 2021; 25 (03) 299-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Tsunoda A. Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse in the laparoscopic era; a review of the literature. J Anus Rectum Colon 2020; 4 (03) 89-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Madbouly KM, Youssef M. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy versus laparoscopic Wells rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse: long-term results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2018; 28 (01) 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Emile SH, Elfeki HA, Youssef M, Farid M, Wexner SD. Abdominal rectopexy for the treatment of internal rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 2017; 19 (01) O13-O24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Emile SH, Elbanna H, Youssef M. et al. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs Delorme's operation in management of complete rectal prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Colorectal Dis 2017; 19 (01) 50-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Catanzarite T, Klaristenfeld DD, Tomassi MJ, Zazueta-Damian G, Alperin M. Recurrence of rectal prolapse after surgical repair in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 2018; 61 (07) 861-867
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar