Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transperineal rectocele repair with biomesh: updating of a tertiary refer center prospective study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Symptomatic rectocele results in obstructed defecation and constipation. Surgical repair may provide symptomatic relief. A variety of surgical procedures have been used in the rectocele repair to enhance anatomical and functional results and to improve long-term outcomes.

Methods

In this prospective study, we treated 25 selected women suffering from simple symptomatic rectocele with transperineal repair using porcine dermal acellular collagen matrix Biomesh (Permacol®). Watson score and SF-36 questionnaire were used to evaluate postoperative outcomes and quality of life.

Results

Follow-up ranged from 12 to 24 months, the mean total Watson score was significantly lower than the preoperative score (P < 0.001), and every patient has improved functional outcomes. There were no major intraoperative or postoperative complications. Two cases of urinary infection and 4 patients delayed wound healing were reported. Those patients who were sexually active prior to surgery have not experienced problems with sexual function or dyspareunia.

Conclusions

Despite lack of comparative study in literature, rectocele repair with Permacol® by the transperineal approach seems an effective and safe procedure that avoids some of the complications associated with synthetic mesh use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dietz HP, Steensma AB (2006) The role of childbirth in the aetiology of rectocele. BJOG 113:264–267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Capps WF (1975) Rectoplasty and perineoplasty for the symptomatic rectocele: a report of fifty cases. Dis Colon Rectum 18:237–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sarles JC, Arnaud A, Selezneff I, Olivier S (1989) Endorectal repair of rectocele. Int J Color Dis 4:167–171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Neal Ellis C (2005) Treatment of obstructed defecation. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 18(2):85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smart NJ, Mercer-Jones MA (2007 Sep) Functional outcome after transperineal rectocele repair with porcine dermal collagen implant. Dis Colon Rectum 50(9):1422–1427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Milito G, Cadeddu F, Grande M, Selvaggio I, Farinon AM (2009) Advances in treatment of obstructed defecation: biomesh transperineal repair. Dis Colon Rectum 52:2051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Veglia A, Petrolino M, De Fazio M, Sallustio P (2002) Combined perineal and endorectal repair of rectocele by circular stapler: a novel surgical technique. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1549–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Maher C, Baessler K (2006) Surgical management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse: an evidence-based literature review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:84–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ayabaca SM, Zbar AP, Pescatori M (2002) Anal continence after rectocele repair. Dis Colon Rectum 45:63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zbar AP, Lienemann A, Fritsch H, Beer-Gabel M, Pescatori M (2003) Rectocele: pathogenesis and surgical management. Int J Color Dis 18(5):369–384

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. American College of Gastroenterology Constipation Task Force (2005) An evidence-based approach to the management of chronic constipation in North America. Am J Gastroenterol 100(Suppl 1):S1–S4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kahn MA, Stanton SI (1997) Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:882–886

    Google Scholar 

  13. Khubchandani IT, Clancey JP, Rosen L, Riether RD, Stasik JJ (1997) Endorectal repair rectocele revisited. Br J Surg 84:89–91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Stojkovic SG, Balfour L, Burke D, Finan PJ, Sagar PM (2003) Does the need to self-digitate or the presence of a large or nonemptying rectocoele on proctography influence the outcome of transanal rectocoele repair? Color Dis 5:169–172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hanson JM, Aspin B, Spalding LJ, Varma JS (2004) Transperineal repair of rectocele using porcine collagen. Color Dis 6(suppl 1):36

    Google Scholar 

  16. Altman D, Zetterstrom J, Lopez A et al (2005) Functional and anatomic outcome after transvaginal rectocele repair using collagen mesh: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1233–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Watson SJ, Loder PB, Halligan S, Bartram CI, Kamm MA, Phillips RK (1996) Transperineal repair of symptomatic ectocele with Marlex mesh: a clinical, physiological and radiologic assessment of treatment. J Am Coll Surg 183:257–261

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pescatori M, Milito G, Fiorino M, Cadeddu F (2009) Complications and reinterventions after surgery for obstructed defecation. Int J Color Dis 24:951–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kahn MA, Stanton SL, Kumar D, Fox SD (1999) Posterior colporrhaphy is superior to the transanal repair for treatment of posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 18:70–71

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nieminen K, Hiltunen K, Laitinen J, Oksala J, Heinonen P (2003) Transanal or vaginal approach to rectocele repair: results of a prospective randomized study. Neurourol Urodyn 22:547–548

    Google Scholar 

  21. Arnold MW, Stewart WR, Aguilar PS (1990) Rectocele repair. Four years’ experience. Dis Colon Rectum 33:684–687

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nieminen K, Hiltunen KM, Laitinen J, Oksala J, Heinonen PK (2004) Transanal or vaginal approach to rectocele repair: a prospective, randomized pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1636–1642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S (2004) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004014

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fischer F, Farke S, Schwandner O, Bruch HP, Schiedeck T (2005) Functional results after transvaginal, transperineal and transrectal correction of a symptomatic rectocele. Zentralbl Chir 130:400–404

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Milley PS, Nichols DH (1969) A correlative investigation of the human rectovaginal septum. Anat Rec 163:443–452

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Richardson AC (1993) The rectovaginal septum revisited: its relationship to rectocele and its importance in rectocele repair. Clin Obstet Gynecol 36:976–983

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Porter WE, Steele A, Walsh P, Kohli N, Karram MM (1999) The anatomic and functional outcomes of defect-specific rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:1353–1359

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Abramov Y, Gandhi S, Goldberg R et al (2004) Does discrete site-specific defect repair carry better objective and subjective outcomes than standard posterior colporrhaphy? Neurourol Urodyn 23:437–439

    Google Scholar 

  29. Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR (2000) Sexual function and vaginal anatomy in women before and after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:1610–1615

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Singh K, Cortes E, Reid WM (2003) Evaluation of the fascial technique for surgical repair of isolated posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 101:320–324

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Maher CF, Qatawneh A, Baessler K, Schluter P (2004) Midline rectovaginal fascial plication for repair of rectocele and obstructed defecation (abstract 166). Obstet Gynecol 104:685–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Abramov Y, Kwon C, Gandhi S, Goldberg R, Sand PK (2003) Long-term anatomic outcome of discrete site-specific defect repair versus standard posterior colporrhaphy for the correction of advanced rectocele: a 1 year follow-up analysis. Neurourol Urodyn 22:520–521

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW, Winkler HA, Tomezsko J, Culligan PJ, Goldberg R (2001) Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1357–1362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Dwyer PL, O’Reilly BA (2004) Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse Atrium polypropylene mesh. BJOG 111:831–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Salvatore S, Soligo M, Meschia M, Luppino G, Piffarotti P, Arcarci V (2002) Prosthetic surgery for genital prolapse: functional outcome. Neurourol Urodyn 21:296–297

    Google Scholar 

  36. Zimmermann EF, Hayes RS, Daniels IR, Smart NJ, Warwick AM (2017 Oct) Transperineal rectocele repair: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg 87(10):773–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Leventoğlu S, Menteş BB, Akin M, Karen M, Karamercan A, Oğuz M (2007 Dec) Transperineal rectocele repair with polyglycolic acid mesh: a case series. Dis Colon Rectum 50:2085–2092

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General and Pancreatic Surgery, University of Verona, Borgo Roma, Verona, Italy

    Giorgio Lisi

  2. Department of General Surgery, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

    M. Campanelli

  3. University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    S. Grande

  4. Department of General and Emergency Surgery, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

    M. Grande & G. Milito

  5. Department of Surgical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    D. Mascagni

Authors
  1. Giorgio Lisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Campanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Grande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Grande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Mascagni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Milito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.L. was responsible for manuscript writing, study design, data collection, and interpretation.

M.C. was responsible for editing and drafting the manuscript.

S.G. and M.G. and D.M. were responsible for study design and performed the specimen analyses.

G.M. performed surgery and were responsible for data interpretation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgio Lisi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lisi, G., Campanelli, M., Grande, S. et al. Transperineal rectocele repair with biomesh: updating of a tertiary refer center prospective study. Int J Colorectal Dis 33, 1583–1588 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-3054-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-3054-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation