Anorectal Physiology Testing for Prolapse—What Tests are Necessary?

Rectal prolapse frequently occurs in conjunction with functional and anatomic abnormalities of the bowel and pelvic floor. Prolapse surgery should have as its goal not only to correct the prolapse, but also to improve function to the greatest extent possible. Careful history-taking and physical exam continue to be the surgeon's best tools to put rectal prolapse in its functional context. Physiologic testing augments this and informs surgical decision-making. Defecography can identify concomitant middle compartment prolapse and pelvic floor hernias, potentially targeting patients for urogynecologic consultation or combined repair. Other tests, including manometry, ultrasound, and electrophysiologic testing, may be of utility in select cases. Here, we provide an overview of available testing options and their individual utility in rectal prolapse.

Scaffolds for Pelvic Floor Prolapse: Logical Pathways

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has borrowed principles of treatment from hernia repair and in the last two decades we saw reinforcement materials to treat POP with good outcomes in terms of anatomy but with alarming complication rates. Polypropylene meshes to specifically treat POP have been withdrawn from market by manufactures and a blank space was left to be filled with new materials. Macroporous monofilament meshes are ideal candidates and electrospinning emerged as a reliable method capable of delivering production reproducibility and customization. In this review, we point out some pathways that seem logical to be followed but have been only researched in last couple of years.

The incidence of mesh extrusion after vaginal incontinence and pelvic floor prolapse surgery

Purpose: The advantages of using synthetic mesh in vaginal reconstructive surgery are significant. However, the concern about extrusion has led many to question its use. We wished to learn the extrusion rates and time to extrusion in patients undergoing vaginal stress incontinence and prolapse surgeries using polypropylene mesh. Materials and methods: Five hundred and seventy six women underwent vaginal reconstructive surgery with synthetic mesh between August 2000 and October 2009 for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence, with or without pelvic organ prolapse repair. 367 patients had at least one year follow-up. Procedures were: pubo-vaginal sling (PVS), PVS and anterior repair, PVS with anterior and/or posterior repairs, and PVS with hysterectomy and anterior and posterior repairs. Time to mesh extrusion was estimated using a survival function curve. Results: Forty-two (11.4%) patients sustained a mesh extrusion. The rate of mesh extrusion was (6.3%) in the PVS group, (14.7%) in the PVS and anterior repair group, (11.1%) in the PVS with anterior and posterior repairs group and (5%) in the PVS with hysterectomy and anterior and posterior repair. Percent extrusion free at one to four years post-op was (91%) and (85%). Conclusion: Our study provides a large series of prolapse cases performed by a single surgeon with follow-up that extends at least one year, with the longest follow-up at eight years. The incidence of long term mesh extrusion needs to be considered with respect to the support advantages of synthetic mesh in planning vaginal reconstructive surgery.