Mid-term functional and quality of life outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: multicenter comparative matched-pair analyses

Background The aim of this study was to compare patients’ mid-term functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). Methods The data of consecutive female patients who underwent minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for external or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse at 3 hospitals in Finland between January 2011 and December 2016 were retrospectively collected. Patients were matched by age and diagnosis at a 1:1 ratio. A disease-related symptom questionnaire was sent to all living patients at follow-up in July 2018. Results After a total of 401 patients (RVMR, n = 187; LVMR, n = 214) were matched, 152 patients in each group were included in the final analyses. The median follow-up times were 3.3 (range 1.6–7.4) years and 3.0 (range 1.6–7.6) years for the RVMR and LVMR groups, respectively. The postoperative QoL measures did not differ between the groups. Compared with the LVMR group, the RVMR group had lower postoperative Wexner Incontinence Score (median 5 vs. median 8; p < 0.001), experienced significant ongoing incontinence symptoms less often (30.6% vs. 49.0%; p < 0.001) and reported less postoperative faecal incontinence discomfort evaluated with the visual analogue scale (median 11 vs. median 39; p = 0.005). RVMR patients had a shorter hospital stay (2.2 days vs. 3.8 days; p < 0.001) but experienced more frequent de novo pelvic pain (31.8% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.001). Conclusion RVMR and LVMR patients had equal functional and QoL outcomes. Those who underwent RVMR had lower mid-term anal incontinence symptom scores but suffered more frequent de novo pelvic pain.

Are there any advantages of 3D laparoscopic technologies in surgery for rectocele and rectal prolapse?

AIM: to assess results of 3D laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus traditional 2D laparoscopy for rectocele and rectal prolapse.PATIENTS AND METHODS: a prospective randomized study (NCT 04817150) included patients aged 18 to 70 years who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectocele and/or rectal prolapse. The assessment included operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications rate and their severity by Clavien-Dindo scale, the pain intensity by VAS, the volume of the fluid collection in the implant site 2–3 days and 2–3 weeks after the procedure. The surgeon’s comfort and ergonomics when using 3D systems was evaluated using POMS questionnaire. The late results were assessed by recurrence rate, functional results — by Cleveland Clinic Constipation scale score, Incontinence scale score, P-Qol, and PGII.RESULTS: the study included 29 patients of the main and 32 patients of the control group. The follow-up was 21 ± 20.3 months. One complication developed in the control group (p = 1.0). The operation time in the main group was 74.1 ± 14 minutes (87.1 ± 24.3 minutes in controls, p = 0.01). The intraoperative blood loss was 19.8 ± 9.6 ml in the main group (55 ± 39.2 ml in controls, p = 0.001). The pain intensity was significantly lower in the main group (18.0 vs 22.5 points, p = 0.03). The volume of fluid collection 2–3 after surgery mesh site was 21.2 ± 9.7 cm3 in the main group (30.7 ± 25.6 cm3 in the control group, p = 0.02). The POMS scale assessment for a surgeon in the main group was 56.4 ± 33.5 points (87.3 ± 30.8 points in the control group). A follow-up examination 12 months postop revealed no recurrence in both groups (p = 1.0). The main and the control group showed no significant differences in functional outcomes.CONCLUSIONS: the use of 3D laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectocele and rectal prolapse is comparable in late results with traditional laparoscopic procedure. However, it takes less operation time, lower pain intensity, less intraoperative blood loss, smaller fluid collection at mesh site, better comfort and ergonomics for surgeon.

Laparoscopic approach to recurrence following multiple surgeries for external rectal prolapse: a case report

Introduction The optimal procedure for recurrent external rectal prolapse remains unclear, particularly in laparoscopic approach. In addition, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is sometimes concomitant with rectal prolapse. We present a case who underwent laparoscopic procedure for the recurrence of full-thickness external rectal prolapse coexisting POP. Case presentation An 81-year-old parous female had a 10-cm full-thickness external rectal prolapse following the two operations: the first was perineal recto-sigmoidectomy and the second was laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. Imaging study revealed that the recurrent rectal prolapse was concomitant with both cystocele and exposed vagina, what we call POP. We planned and successfully performed laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) using self-cut meshes without any perioperative complication. Conclusion This is the first report of LVMR and LSC for recurrent rectal prolapse with POP following the perineal recto-sigmoidectomy and laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. Even for recurrent rectal prolapse with POP, our experience suggests that LVMR and LSC could be utilized.