Clinical Outcome after Resection Rectopexy in patients with Constipation and Rectal Prolapse

Purpose Laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) is an established procedure for the treatment of rectal prolapse. This study evaluated constipation and gastrointestinal quality of life in patients before and after LRR for rectal prolapse. Methods 30 patients (24 females, 6 males) underwent laparoscopic anterior (n = 14), posterior (n = 8) and suture resection rectopexy (n = 8) for rectal prolapse during 2010–2020. 25 were retrospectively evaluated for constipation and gastrointestinal quality of life using validated Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). Results Constipation score was significantly reduced from median 16.0 ± 6.4 to 6.0 ± 4.7 after 68.0 ± 42.8 months (p < 0.001). Constipation was improved in 20 patients (80.0%), unaltered in 2 patients and worse in 3 patients. Prior abdominal surgeries were associated with less improvement for constipation (p < 0,05). Significant improvement in GIQLI score was observed, with median total GIQLI score increasing from 95.0 ± 14.8 to 124.0 ± 18.2 (p < 0.001). Quality of life improved in 21 patients (84.0%). Positive changes were also observed in GIQLI subgroups of gastrointestinal symptoms, emotions, physical status, social dysfunction and effects of medical treatment (p < 0.001). There was no difference in outcome between the three procedures. Conclusion Laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse is safe, feasible, and very effective regarding both perioperative results and long-term functional outcome. Our results suggest that LRR significantly improves constipation in patients with outlet obstruction and clearly contributes to a higher quality of life.

Rectal Prolapse: Abdominal Procedures

Rectal prolapse is the full thickness intussusception of the rectal wall with protrusion out of the anus. It is a benign condition associated with multiple anatomic abnormalities such as a redundant sigmoid colon, attenuation of sacral attachments, diastasis of the levators, a patulous anus, and a deep cul-de-sac. It often presents with concomitant symptoms of fecal incontinence and constipation, or both. In this review, we will discuss widely accepted abdominal procedures for the repair of rectal prolapse as well as advances in the arena. Pre-operative evaluation, management and planning as well as perineal procedures are discussed in a separate review. This review contains 9 figures, 1 table, and 44 references. Key Words: Rectal prolapse, abdominal procedures, resection, rectopexy, mesh, laparoscopic, robotic

Resection Rectopexy is Still an Acceptable Operation for Rectal Prolapse

The aim of this study was to compare resection rectopexy (RR) with ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). This institutional review board–approved retrospective study compared patients with rectal prolapse, who underwent RR or VMR from 2009 to 2016. The primary end point was the comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence rates. Seventy-nine RR and 108 VMR patients qualified. Using propensity score matching, the two groups were not significantly different (P = 0.818). There were no differences regarding gender (female 103 vs 72; P = 0.4) and age (59.3 vs 53.9; P = 0.054). Patients in the VMR group had a greater body mass index (25.5 vs 22.9; P = 0.001) and poorer physical status (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3 57.4% vs 41.8%; P = 0.04). The VMR group had more: robotic approaches (69.4% vs 8.9%; P < 0.001), concomitant urogynecological procedures (63 vs 19; P < 0.001), and longer operative time (269 vs 206 minutes; P < 0.001) but a reduced length of stay (2 vs 5 days; P < 0.001). The median follow-up (16 vs 26 months; P = 0.125) and the median time of recurrence (14 vs 38 months; P = 0.163) were similar. No differences were observed for complications or recurrence (10.2% vs 10.1%; P = 0.43). We failed to identify superiority based on surgical technique.