Thulium laser to endoscopically manage a rectal erosion and intraluminal mesh migration after ventral rectopexy

Rectal erosions after ventral rectopexy (VR) is an uncommon but challenging adverse event and can be associated with partial migration of the mesh into the intestinal cavity. Re-do surgery is difficult and often provides colostomy and/or anterior rectal resections. However, no alternative solutions are described in the available literature. An 82-year-old woman presented to our hospital for rectal erosion and intraluminal migration of the mesh placed at a 1-year laparoscopic VR. We performed an innovative totally endoscopic approach, using thulium laser and two endoscopes, that led to a successful removal of the mesh. The described mini-invasive technique can be an effective alternative to surgery in tertiary referral centres.

Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy for the treatment for Solitary rectal ulcer- a good choice?

Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is an uncommon benign disease characterized by a combination of symptoms, clinical and histological findings, where men and women are affected equally, with a small predominance in women. Various treatment strategies have been advocated, ranging from conservative management to a variety of surgical procedures. Can laparoscopic ventral rectopexy be a good alternative for patients who do not respond to conservative treatment? Given the rarity of this pathology, we chose to present the case.

Redo ventral rectopexy: is it worthwhile?

Background Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely used surgical treatment for posterior pelvic organ prolapse; however, evidence of the utility of revisional surgery is lacking. Our aim was to assess the technical details, safety and outcomes of redo minimally invasive VMR for patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) recurrence or relapsed symptoms of internal rectal prolapse (IRP). Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with recurrent ERP or symptomatic IRP who underwent redo minimally invasive VMR between 2011 and 2016. The study was conducted at three hospitals in Finland. Data collected retrospectively included patient demographics, in addition to perioperative and short-term postoperative findings. At follow-up, all living patients were sent a questionnaire concerning postoperative disease-related symptoms and quality of life. Results A total of 43 redo minimally invasive VMR were performed during the study period. The indication for reoperation was recurrent ERP in 22 patients and relapsed symptoms of IRP in 21 patients. In most operations (62.8%), the previously used mesh was left in situ and a new one was placed. Ten (23.3%) patients experienced complications, including 2 (4.7%) mesh-related complications. The recurrence rate was 4.5% for ERP. Three patients out of 43 were reoperated on for various reasons. One patient required postoperative laparoscopic hematoma evacuation. Patients operated on for recurrent ERP seemed to benefit more from the reoperation. Conclusions Minimally invasive redo VMR appears to be a safe and effective procedure for treating posterior pelvic floor dysfunction with acceptable recurrence and reoperation rates.