Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for the treatment of obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse: a critical appraisal of the first 100 cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is gaining wider acceptance as the preferred procedure to correct internal as well as external rectal prolapse associated with obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence. Very few reports exist on the use of biologic mesh for LVR. The aim of our study was to report the complication and recurrence rate of our first 100 cases of LVR for symptomatic internal rectal prolapse and/or rectocele using a porcine dermal collagen mesh.

Methods

Prospectively collected data on LVR for internal rectal prolapse were analysed. Surgical complications and functional results in terms of faecal incontinence (measured with the Faecal Incontinence Severity Index = FISI) and constipation (measured with the Wexner Constipation Score = WCS) at 3, 6 and 12 months were analysed. It was considered an improvement if FISI or WCS scores were reduced by at least 25 % and a cure if the FISI score decreased to <10 and the WCS decreased to <5.

Results

Between April 2009 and April 2013, 100 consecutive female patients (mean age 63 years, range 24–88 years) underwent LVR. All patients had internal rectal prolapse (grade III [n = 25] and grade IV [n = 75] according to the Oxford classification) and rectocele. Mean operative time was 85 ± 40 min. Conversion rate to open technique was 1 %. There was no post-operative mortality. Overall 16 patients (16 %) experienced 18 complications, including rectal perforation (n = 1), small bowel obstruction (n = 2), urinary tract infection (n = 8), subcutaneous emphysema (n = 3), wound haematoma (n = 2), long lasting sacral pain (n = 1) and incisional hernia (1). Median post-operative length of stay was 2 days. Ninety-eight out of 100 patients completed follow-up. At the end of follow-up, the mean FISI score improved from 8.4 (±4.0 standard deviation (SD) p = 0.003) to 3.3 ± 2.3 SD (p = 0.04). Incontinence improved in 37 out of 43 patients (86 %), and 31 patients (72 %) were cured. Similarly, the mean WCS score improved from 18.4 ± 11.6 SD to 5.4 ± 4.1 SD (p = 0.04). Constipation improved in 82 out of 89 patients (92 %), and 70 patients (79 %) were cured. No worsening of continence status, constipation or sexual function was observed. Fourteen patients (14 %) experienced persistence or recurrence of prolapse.

Conclusions

LVR using biologic mesh is a safe and effective procedure for improving symptoms of obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse associated with rectocele.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91:1500–1505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. D’Hoore A, Penninckx F (2006) Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Surg Endosc 20:1919–1923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wijffels N, Cunningham C, Dixon A, Greenslade G, Lindsey I (2001) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse is safe and effective in the elderly. Does this make perineal procedures obsolete? Colorectal Dis 13:561–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Collinson R, Wijffels N, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2010) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse: short-term functional results. Colorectal Dis 12:97–104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Auguste T, Dubreuil A, Bost R, Bonaz B, Faucheron JL (2006) Technical and functional results after laparoscopic rectopexy to the promontory for complete rectal prolapse. Prospective study in 54 consecutive patients. Gastroenterol Clin Boil 30:659–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Abet E, Lehur PA, Wong M (2012) Sexual function and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for complex rectocoele. Colorectal Dis 14:721–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ahmad M, Sileri P, Franceschilli L (2012) The role of biologics in pelvic floor surgery. Colorectal Dis 14(Suppl 3):19–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shah BC, Tiwari MM, Goede MR et al (2011) Not all biologics are equal! Hernia 15:165–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wahed S, Ahmad M, Mohiuddin K, Katory M, Mercer-Jones M (2012) Short term results for laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Colorectal Dis 14:1242–1247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sileri P, Franceschilli L, De Luca E (2012) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse using biologic mesh: postoperative and short-term functional results. J Gastrointest Surg 16:622–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smart NJ, Pathak S, Boorman P (2013) Synthetic or biologic mesh use in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy-a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 15:650–654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boons P, Collinson R, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2010) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse improves constipation and avoids de novo constipation. Colorectal Dis 12:526–532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sileri P, Franceschilli L, Gaspari AL (2012) Saving time stitching thick biologic mesh during laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Tech Coloproctol 16:393–394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Koch SM, Melenhorst J, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG (2008) Prospective study of colonic irrigation for the treatment of defaecation disorders. Br J Surg 95:1273–1279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van den Esschert JW, van Geloven AA, Vermulst N, Groenedijk AG, de Wit LT, Gerhards MF (2008) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for obstructed defecation syndrome. Surg Endosc 22:2728–2732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bachoo P, Brazzelli M, Grant A (2000) Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD001758

  17. Formijne Jonkers HA, Poierrié N, Draaisma WA (2013) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and symptomatic rectocele: an analysis of 245 consecutive patients. Colorectal Dis 15:695–699

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maggiori L, Bretagnol F, Ferron M (2013) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective long-term evaluation of functional results and quality of life. Tech Coloproctol 17:431–436

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prasad ML, Pearl RK, Abcarian H, Orsay CP, Nelson RL (1986) Perineal proctectomy, posterior rectopexy, and postanal levator repair for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 29:547–552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Samaranayake CB, Luo C, Plank AW, Merrie AE, Plank LD, Bissett IP (2010) Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception. Colorectal Dis 12:504–512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Faucheron JL, Voirin D, Riboud R et al (2012) Laparoscopic anterior rectopexy to the promontory for full-thickness rectal prolapse in 175 consecutive patients: short- and long-term follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 55:660–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Madiba TE, Baig MK, Wexner SD (2005) Surgical management of rectal prolapse. Arch Surg 140:63–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. William C, Cirocco MD (2010) Altemeier procedure for rectal prolapse: an operation for all ages. Dis Colon Rectum 53:1618–1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Duthie GS, Bartolo DC (1992) Abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparison of techniques. Br J Surg 79:107–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Riansuwan W, Hull TL, Bast J, Hammel JP, Church JM (2010) Comparison of perineal operations with abdominal operations for full-thickness rectal prolapse. World J Surg 34:1116–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rexnik Z, Vishne TH, Kristt D, Alper D, Ramadan E (2001) Rectal prolapse: a possible under-recognized complication of anorexia nervosa amenable to surgical correction. Int J Psychiatry Med 31:347–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sileri P, Iacoangeli F, Staar F et al (2012) Nervosa anorexia leads to defaecatory disorders compared to general population. Gastroenterology 5:S1072–S1073

    Google Scholar 

  29. Silvis R, Gooszen HG, van Essen A, de Kruif AT, Janssen LW (1999) Abdominal rectovaginopexy: modified technique to treat constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 42:82–88

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Verdaasdonk EG, Bueno de Mesquita JM, Stassen LP (2006) Laparoscopic rectovaginopexy for rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 10:318–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Portier G, Iovino F, Lazorthes F (2006) Surgery for rectal prolapse: orr-Loygue ventral rectopexy with limited dissection prevents postoperative-induced constipation without increasing recurrence. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1136–1140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yakut M, Kaymakcioglu N, Simsek A, Tan A, Sen D (1998) Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. A retrospective analysis of 94 cases. Int Surg 83:53–55

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lechaux JP, Lechaux D, Perz M (1995) Results of Delorme’s procedure for rectal prolapse. Advantages of modified technique. Dis Colon Rectum 38:301–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gaertner WB, Bonsack ME, Delaney JP (2007) Experimental evaluation of four biologic prostheses for ventral hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1275–1285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Clearhout F, De Ridder D, Van Beckevoort D et al (2010) Sacrocolpopexy using xenogenic acellular collagen in patients at increased risk for graft-related complications. Neurourol Urodynam 29:563–567

    Google Scholar 

  36. Peppas G, Gkegkes ID, Makris MC, Falagas ME (2010) Biologic mesh in hernia repair, abdominal wall defects, and reconstruction and treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a review of the clinical evidence. Am Surg 76:1290–1299

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Athanasiadis S, Weyand G, Heiligers J (1996) The risk of infection of three synthetic materials used in rectopexy with or without colonic resection for rectal prolapse. Int J Colorectal Dis 11:42–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hamoudi-Badrek A, Greenslade GL, Dixon AR (2013) How to deal with complications after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR): lessons learnt from a tertiary referral centre. Colorectal Dis 15:707–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. FDA Safety Communication (2011) UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. July 13, 2011

  40. Franklin ME Jr, Treviño JM, Portillo G, Vela I, Glass JL, González JJ (2008) The use of porcine small intestinal submucosa as a prosthetic material for laparoscopic hernia repair in infected and potentially contaminated fields: long-term follow-up. Surg Endosc 22:1941–1946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Brubaker L, Norton PA, Albo ME et al, Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network (2011) Adverse events over two years after retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling surgery: findings from the trial of midurethral sling (TOMUS) study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:498.e1–498.e6

  42. Pescatori M, Spyrou M, Pulvirenti d’Urso A (2007) A prospective evaluation of occult disorders in obstructed defecation using the ‘iceberg diagram’. Colorectal Dis 9:452–456

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Tor Vergata Polyclinic, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy

    L. Franceschilli, D. Varvaras, I. Capuano, C. I. Ciangola, F. Giorgi, A. L. Gaspari & P. Sileri

  2. Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Marienhospital, Teaching Hospital of Rheinisch-Westfaelische Technische Hoschschule, Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    G. Boehm

Authors
  1. L. Franceschilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Varvaras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Capuano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. I. Ciangola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. Giorgi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Boehm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. L. Gaspari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. Sileri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Sileri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Franceschilli, L., Varvaras, D., Capuano, I. et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for the treatment of obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse: a critical appraisal of the first 100 cases. Tech Coloproctol 19, 209–219 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1255-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1255-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation