Postoperative complications and recurrence rates after rectal prolapse surgery versus combined rectal prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
Combined rectal prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse surgery
Pelvic organ prolapse
Rectal prolapse
Rectopexy
Recurrence
Sacrocolpopexy
Surgical complications
Journal
International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
30
11
2020
accepted:
24
03
2021
pubmed:
18
4
2021
medline:
21
9
2021
entrez:
17
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Our primary objectives were to compare < 30-day postoperative complications and RP recurrence rates after RP-only surgery and combined surgery. Our secondary objectives were to determine preoperative predictors of < 30-day complications and RP recurrence. A prospective IRB-approved cohort study was performed at a single tertiary care center from 2017 to 2020. Female patients with symptomatic RP underwent either RP-only surgery or combined surgery based on the discretion of the colorectal and FPMRS surgeons. Primary outcome measures were < 30-day complications separated into Clavien-Dindo (CD) classes and rectal prolapse on physical examination. Seventy women had RP-only surgery and 45 had combined surgery with a mean follow-up time of 208 days. Sixty-eight percent underwent abdominal RP repair, and 32% underwent perineal RP repair. Twenty percent had one or more complications, 14% in the RP-only group and 29% in the combined surgery group (p = 0.06). On multivariate analysis, combined surgery patients had a 30% increased risk of complications compared to RP-only surgery patients (RR = 1.3). Most of these complications were minor (14/17, 82.4%) and categorized as CD I or II, including urinary retention and UTI. Twelve percent of this cohort had RP recurrence, 11% in the RP-only group and 13% in the combined surgery group (p = 0.76). Preoperative risk factors for RP recurrence included a primary complaint of rectal bleeding (RR 5.5) and reporting stools consistent with Bristol Stool Scale of 1 (RR 2.1). Patients undergoing combined RP + POP surgery had a higher risk of complications and equivalent RP recurrence rates compared to patients undergoing RP-only surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33864476
doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-04778-y
pii: 10.1007/s00192-021-04778-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2401-2411Informations de copyright
© 2021. The International Urogynecological Association.
Références
Bordeianou L, et al. Rectal prolapse: an overview of clinical features, diagnosis, and patient-specific management strategies. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(5):1059–69.
doi: 10.1007/s11605-013-2427-7
Altman D, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence in women with surgically managed rectal prolapse: a population-based case-control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(1):28–35.
doi: 10.1007/s10350-005-0217-3
Nygaard I, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311–6.
doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311
Naldini G, et al. Complex pelvic organ prolapse: decision-making algorithm. Int J Color Dis. 2019;34(1):189–92.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-018-3149-9
Geltzeiler CB, et al. Combined rectopexy and sacrocolpopexy is safe for correction of pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Color Dis. 2018;33(10):1453–9.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-018-3140-5
Tou S, Brown SR, Nelson RL. Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;11:CD001758.
Maher C, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014.
Siddiqui NY, et al. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):44–55.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000570
Lim M, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in females: functional outcome of mesh sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy as a combined procedure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(9):1412–21.
doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-0255-0
van Zanten F, et al. Long-term anatomical and functional results of robot-assisted pelvic floor surgery for the management of multicompartment prolapse: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020.
Dindo D, et al. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Unger CA, et al. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:547:e1–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.054
van Iersel JJ, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for multicompartment prolapse of the pelvic floor: a prospective cohort study evaluating functional and sexual outcome. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(10):968–74.
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000669
Campagna G, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy plus ventral rectopexy as combined treatment for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. Tech Coloproctol. 2020;24(6):573–84.
doi: 10.1007/s10151-020-02199-5
Weinberg D, et al. Safety of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent rectopexy: peri-operative morbidity in a nationwide cohort. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(3):385–92.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3699-y
Reddy J, et al. Robotic sacrocolpoperineopexy with ventral rectopexy for the combined treatment of rectal and pelvic organ prolapse: initial report and technique. J Robot Surg. 2011;5(3):167–73.
doi: 10.1007/s11701-011-0257-8
Jallad K, et al. The effect of surgical start time in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(10):1535–9.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-2994-8
Ayav A, et al. Surgical management of combined rectal and genital prolapse in young patients: transabdominal approach. Int J Color Dis. 2005;20(2):173–9.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-004-0647-8
Collopy BT, et al. Abdominal colporectopexy with pelvic cul-de-sac closure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(4):522–9.
doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-6232-y
Kiyasu Y, et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with sacrocolpopexy for coexisting pelvic organ prolapse and external rectal prolapse. J Anus Rectum Colon. 2018;1(4):141–6.
doi: 10.23922/jarc.2016-013
Popp L, et al. Pelvic floor-lifting: an interdisciplinary repair of combined rectal and vaginal prolapse-5 years’ experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(1):83–90.
doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2635-5
Riansuwan W, et al. Combined surgery in pelvic organ prolapse is safe and effective. Color Dis. 2010;12(3):188–92.
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01772.x
Sagar PM, et al. Feasibility and functional outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolporectopexy for combined vaginal and rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(9):1414–20.
doi: 10.1007/s10350-008-9371-8
Slawik S, et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction. Color Dis. 2008;10(2):138–43.
Wallace SL, et al. Surgical approach, complications, and reoperation rates of combined rectal and pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(10):2101–8.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04394-2
Watadani Y, et al. Sacrocolpopexy with rectopexy for pelvic floor prolapse improves bowel function and quality of life. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(12):1415–22.
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182a62dbb
Yang SJ, et al. Laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Ann Coloproctol. 2017;33(2):64–9.
doi: 10.3393/ac.2017.33.2.64
Speed, J.M., et al., Trends in the Diagnosis and Management of Combined Rectal and Vaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse. [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 19] Urology. 2020.