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.

Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for rectal prolapse. Both synthetic and biologic mesh are used. No consensus exists on the preferred type of mesh material. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish an overview of the current literature on mesh-related complications and recurrence after VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh to aid evidence-based decision making in preferred mesh material. Methods A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane was performed (from inception until September 2020). Studies evaluating patients who underwent VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh were eligible. The MINORS score was used for quality assessment. Results Thirty-two studies were eligible after qualitative assessment. Eleven studies reported on mesh-related complications including 4001 patients treated with synthetic mesh and 762 treated with biologic mesh. The incidence of mesh-related complications ranged between 0 and 2.4% after synthetic versus 0–0.7% after biologic VMR. Synthetic mesh studies showed a pooled incidence of mesh-related complications of 1.0% (95% CI 0.5–1.7). Data of biologic mesh studies could not be pooled. Twenty-nine studies reported on the risk of recurrence in 2371 synthetic mesh patients and 602 biologic mesh patients. The risk of recurrence varied between 1.1 and 18.8% for synthetic VMR versus 0–15.4% for biologic VMR. Cumulative incidence of recurrence was found to be 6.1% (95% CI 4.3–8.1) and 5.8% (95% CI 2.9–9.6), respectively. The clinical and statistical heterogeneity was high. Conclusions No definitive conclusions on preferred mesh type can be made due to the quality of the included studies with high heterogeneity amongst them.

EP.TH.772Meta-analysis of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy versus posterior sutured rectopexy for management of complete rectal prolapse

Objectives To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy (LMR) and laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) in patients with rectal prolapse Methods We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits. Recurrence, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), surgical site infections, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome measures. Results We identified 5 comparative studies reporting a total of 307 patients evaluating outcomes of LMR (n = 160) or LPSR (n = 147) in patients with rectal prolapse. LMR was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate (OR:0.28, P = 0.009) but longer procedure time (MD:23.93, P &lt; 0.0001) compared to LPSR. However, there was no significant difference in CCIS (MD:-1.02, P = 0.50), CCCS (MD:-1.54, P = 0.47), surgical site infection (OR:1.48, P = 0.71), and length of hospital stay (MD:-1.54, P = 0.47) between two groups. No mesh erosion was reported in any of the included studies at maximum follow-up point. Sub-group analyses with respect to ventral mesh rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy, randomised studies and adult patients were consistent with the main analysis. Conclusions LMR seems to be associated with lower recurrence but longer procedure time compared to LPSR. Although no mesh related complications have been reported by the included studies, no definitive conclusions can be made considering that the included studies were inadequately powered for such outcome. Future high quality randomised studies with adequate sample size are required.