Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study.
Elderly
Functional outcomes
Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy
Perineal stapler resection
Rectal prolapse
Recurrence
Journal
Techniques in coloproctology
ISSN: 1128-045X
Titre abrégé: Tech Coloproctol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9613614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Apr 2024
15 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
27
11
2023
accepted:
16
03
2024
medline:
15
4
2024
pubmed:
15
4
2024
entrez:
15
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In elderly patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse (EFTRP), the exact differences in postoperative recurrence and functional outcomes between laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and perineal stapler resection (PSR) have not yet been investigated. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study on 330 elderly patients divided into LVMR group (n = 250) and PSR (n = 80) from April 2012 to April 2019. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery by Wexner incontinence scale, Altomare constipation scale, and patient satisfaction questionnaire. The primary outcomes were incidence and risk factors for EFTRP recurrence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative incontinence, constipation, and patient satisfaction. LVMR was associated with fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001), lower prolapse recurrence (p < 0.001), lower Wexner incontinence score (p = 0.03), and lower Altomare's score (p = 0.047). Furthermore, LVMR demonstrated a significantly higher surgery-recurrence interval (p < 0.001), incontinence improvement (p = 0.019), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) than PSR. Three and 13 patients developed new symptoms in LVMR and PSR, respectively. The predictors for prolapse recurrence were LVMR (associated with 93% risk reduction of recurrence, OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.03-0.347, p = 0.001), symptom duration (prolonged duration was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, OR 1.131, 95% CI 1.036-1.236, p = 0.006), and length of prolapse (increased length was associated with a high recurrence risk (OR = 1.407, 95% CI = 1.197-1.655, p < 0.001). LVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes. Clinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In elderly patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse (EFTRP), the exact differences in postoperative recurrence and functional outcomes between laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and perineal stapler resection (PSR) have not yet been investigated.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective multicenter study on 330 elderly patients divided into LVMR group (n = 250) and PSR (n = 80) from April 2012 to April 2019. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery by Wexner incontinence scale, Altomare constipation scale, and patient satisfaction questionnaire. The primary outcomes were incidence and risk factors for EFTRP recurrence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative incontinence, constipation, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
RESULTS
LVMR was associated with fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001), lower prolapse recurrence (p < 0.001), lower Wexner incontinence score (p = 0.03), and lower Altomare's score (p = 0.047). Furthermore, LVMR demonstrated a significantly higher surgery-recurrence interval (p < 0.001), incontinence improvement (p = 0.019), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) than PSR. Three and 13 patients developed new symptoms in LVMR and PSR, respectively. The predictors for prolapse recurrence were LVMR (associated with 93% risk reduction of recurrence, OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.03-0.347, p = 0.001), symptom duration (prolonged duration was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, OR 1.131, 95% CI 1.036-1.236, p = 0.006), and length of prolapse (increased length was associated with a high recurrence risk (OR = 1.407, 95% CI = 1.197-1.655, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
LVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Clinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38619626
doi: 10.1007/s10151-024-02919-1
pii: 10.1007/s10151-024-02919-1
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05915936']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
48Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Bordeianou L, Paquette I, Johnson E et al (2017) Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 60(11):1121–1131. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000889
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000889
pubmed: 28991074
Yiasemidou M, Yates C, Cooper E, Goldacre R, Lindsey I (2023) External rectal prolapse: more than meets the eye. Tech Coloproctol 27(10):783–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-023-02829-8
doi: 10.1007/s10151-023-02829-8
pubmed: 37278904
Gallo G, Martellucci J, Pellino G et al (2018) Consensus statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 22(12):919–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1908-9
doi: 10.1007/s10151-018-1908-9
pubmed: 30554284
Emile SH, Elfeki H, Shalaby M, Sakr A, Sileri P, Wexner SD (2019) Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of the predictors for recurrence. Surg Endosc 33(8):2444–2455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06803-0
doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06803-0
pubmed: 31041515
Emile SH, Khan SM, Garoufalia Z et al (2023) A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 27(10):787–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-023-02813-2
doi: 10.1007/s10151-023-02813-2
pubmed: 37150800
Scherer R, Marti L, Hetzer FH (2008) Perineal stapled prolapse resection: a new procedure for external rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 51(11):1727–1730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-008-9423-0
doi: 10.1007/s10350-008-9423-0
pubmed: 18626711
Romano G, Bianco F, Caggiano L (2009) Modified perineal stapled rectal resection with contour transtar for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis 11(8):878–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01901.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01901.x
pubmed: 19456842
Kössler-Ebs JB, Grummich K, Jensen K et al (2016) Incisional hernia rates after laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery—a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg 40(10):2319–2330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3520-3
doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3520-3
pubmed: 27146053
Brown SR, Pearson K, Hainsworth A, Williams A (2022) Treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse after a laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Tech Coloproctol 26(12):991–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02689-8
doi: 10.1007/s10151-022-02689-8
pubmed: 35994138
Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Ohinmaa A et al (2019) Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: a randomized trial. Tech Coloproctol 23(5):461–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-01991-2
doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-01991-2
pubmed: 31069557
pmcid: 6620369
Vandenbroucke JP, Elm EV, Altman DG et al (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 147(8):W-163–W-194. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1
Park B-S, Cho SH, Son GM et al (2021) Absent or impaired rectoanal inhibitory reflex as a diagnostic factor for high-grade (grade III–V) rectal prolapse: a retrospective study. BMC Gastroenterol 21(1):157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-021-01729-1
doi: 10.1186/s12876-021-01729-1
pubmed: 33827447
pmcid: 8028073
WHO. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health . Accessed 1 Oct 2022
Seong MK, Jung SI, Kim TW, Joh HK (2011) Comparative analysis of summary scoring systems in measuring fecal incontinence. J Korean Surg Soc 81(5):326–331. https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2011.81.5.326
doi: 10.4174/jkss.2011.81.5.326
pubmed: 22148125
pmcid: 3229001
Altomare D, Spazzafumo L, Rinaldi M, Dodi G, Ghiselli R, Piloni V (2008) Set-up and statistical validation of a new scoring system for obstructed defaecation syndrome. Colorectal Dis 10(1):84–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01262.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01262.x
pubmed: 17441968
Clavien PA, Barkun J, De Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
pubmed: 19638912
Tutticci N, Klein A, Sonson R, Bourke MJ (2016) Endoscopic resection of subtotal or completely circumferential laterally spreading colonic adenomas: technique, caveats, and outcomes. Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-101854
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-101854
pubmed: 27009082
Solari S, Martellucci J, Ascanelli S et al (2022) Predictive factors for functional failure of ventral mesh rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation. Tech Coloproctol 26(12):973–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02708-8
doi: 10.1007/s10151-022-02708-8
pubmed: 36197564
pmcid: 9637597
van der Schans EM, Paulides TJC, Wijffels NA, Consten ECJ (2018) Management of patients with rectal prolapse: the 2017 Dutch guidelines. Tech Coloproctol 22(8):589–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1830-1
doi: 10.1007/s10151-018-1830-1
pubmed: 30099626
Ramage L, Simillis C, Yen C et al (2017) Magnetic resonance defecography versus clinical examination and fluoroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 21:915–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1704-y
doi: 10.1007/s10151-017-1704-y
pubmed: 29094218
Piloni V, Bergamasco M, Melara G, Garavello P (2018) The clinical value of magnetic resonance defecography in males with obstructed defecation syndrome. Tech Coloproctol 22:179–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1759-4
doi: 10.1007/s10151-018-1759-4
pubmed: 29512048
Martin-Martin GP, Garcia-Armengol J, Roig-Vila JV et al (2017) Magnetic resonance defecography versus videodefecography in the study of obstructed defecation syndrome: is videodefecography still the test of choice after 50 years? Tech Coloproctol 21:795–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1666-0
doi: 10.1007/s10151-017-1666-0
pubmed: 28755255
Khalil OH, Habeeb TA, Sieda BM (2020) Modified perineal linear stapler resection for external rectal prolapse. Ann Med Surg 54:22–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.03.011
doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.03.011
Farag A, Mashhour AN, Raslan M, Tamer M, Elbarmelgi MY (2020) Laparoscopic pelvic organ prolapse suspension (Pops) versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for treatment of rectal prolapse: prospective cohort study. World J Surg 44:3158–3166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05585-0
doi: 10.1007/s00268-020-05585-0
pubmed: 32424455
Cullen J, Rosselli JM, Gurland BH (2012) Ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 25(01):034–036. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1301757
doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1301757
Faucheron JL, Trilling B, Girard E, Sage PY, Barbois S, Reche F (2015) Anterior rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: technical and functional results. World J Gastroenterol 21(16):5049. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i16.5049
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i16.5049
pubmed: 25945021
pmcid: 4408480
McLean R, Kipling M, Musgrave E, Mercer-Jones M (2018) Short-and long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy using biological mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective cohort study of 224 consecutive patients. Colorectal Dis 20(5):424–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13996
doi: 10.1111/codi.13996
pubmed: 29265594
Albayati S, Chen P, Morgan MJ, Toh JWT (2019) Robotic vs laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol 23(6):529–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02014-w
doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-02014-w
pubmed: 31254202
Gleditsch D, Wexels WA, Nesbakken A (2018) Surgical options and trends in treating rectal prolapse: long-term results in a 19-year follow-up study. Langenb Arch Surg 403:991–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-018-1728-4
doi: 10.1007/s00423-018-1728-4
Gouvas N, Georgiou PA, Agalianos C et al (2015) Ventral colporectopexy for overt rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 17(2):O34–O46. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12751
doi: 10.1111/codi.12751
pubmed: 25186920
Fu CW, Stevenson AR (2017) Risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 60(2):178–186. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000710
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000710
pubmed: 28059914
Glasgow SC, Birnbaum EH, Kodner IJ, Fleshman JW, Dietz DW (2008) Recurrence and quality of life following perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse. J Gastrointest Surg 12:1446–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0531-x
doi: 10.1007/s11605-008-0531-x
pubmed: 18516652
Phillips RKS (2002) Colorectal surgery—a companion to specialist surgical practice, 2nd edn. Tech Coloproctol 6(1):65–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101510200013
doi: 10.1007/s101510200013
Hu B, Zou Q, Xian Z et al (2022) External rectal prolapse: abdominal or perineal repair for men? A retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterol Rep 10:goac007. https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goac007
doi: 10.1093/gastro/goac007
Joubert K, Laryea JA (2017) Abdominal approaches to rectal prolapse. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 30(01):057–062. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1593426
doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1593426
Wallenhorst T, Bouguen G, Brochard C et al (2015) Long-term impact of full-thickness rectal prolapse treatment on fecal incontinence. Surgery 158(1):104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.03.005
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.03.005
pubmed: 25869649
Emile SH, Youssef M, Thabet W et al (2020) Role of endoanal ultrasonography in grading anal sphincter integrity in rectal prolapse and in predicting improvement in the continence state after surgical treatment. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 30(1):62–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000752
doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000752
pubmed: 31876882
Boons P, Collinson R, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2010) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse improves constipation and avoids de novo constipation. Colorectal Dis 12(6):526–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01859.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01859.x
pubmed: 19486104
Consten EC, van Iersel JJ, Verheijen PM, Broeders IA, Wolthuis AM, D’Hoore A (2015) Long-term outcome after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Ann Surg 262(5):742–748. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001401
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001401
pubmed: 26583661
Kwak HD, Chung JS, Ju JK (2023) A comparative study between transanal and transabdominal approaches in treatment of complete rectal prolapse. Int J Colorectal Dis 38(1):78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-023-04371-3
doi: 10.1007/s00384-023-04371-3
pubmed: 36959426
Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Kairaluoma M et al (2018) Does ventral rectopexy improve pelvic floor function in the long term? Dis Colon Rectum 61(2):230–238. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000974
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000974
pubmed: 29337779
Tsunoda A, Takahashi T, Matsuda S, Kusanagi H (2021) Predictive factors for recurrence of external rectal prolapse after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. J Anus Rectum Colon 5(4):376–385. https://doi.org/10.23922/jarc.2021-024
doi: 10.23922/jarc.2021-024
pubmed: 34746502
pmcid: 8553359
Lee JT, Vogler SA, Madoff RD (2019) Chapter 148—diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence. In: Yeo CJ (ed) Shackelford’s surgery of the alimentary tract, 2 volume set (eighth edition). Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 1721–1732
doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-40232-3.00148-5
Jayne DG, Schwandner O, Stuto A (2009) Stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation syndrome: one-year results of the European STARR Registry. Dis Colon Rectum 52(7):1205–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181a9120f
doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181a9120f
pubmed: 19571694
Ganapathi SK, Subbiah R, Rudramurthy S, Kakkilaya H, Ramakrishnan P, Chinnusamy P (2022) Laparoscopic posterior rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse: is it the ideal procedure for males? J Minim Access Surg 18(2):295. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_323_20
doi: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_323_20
pubmed: 35313438
Laubert T, Bader FG, Kleemann M, Esnaashari H, Bouchard R, HildebrandRoblick PUJ (2012) Outcome analysis of elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Int J Colorectal Dis 27:789–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1395-1
doi: 10.1007/s00384-011-1395-1
pubmed: 22249437