Laparoscopic resection rectopexy versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) are favored for the treatment for rectal prolapse (RP) in the USA and Europe, respectively. This study aims to compare these two surgical techniques. All patients who underwent LRR because of RP between January 2000 and January 2012 at Cleveland Clinic Florida (Weston, FL, USA) were identified, and all relevant characteristics were entered in a database. This same analysis was also conducted for all patients who underwent LVR in the Meander Medical Center (Amersfoort, the Netherlands) between January 2004 and January 2012. These two cohorts were retrospectively compared with regard to complications, functional results and recurrence. Twenty-eight patients (all female, mean age 50.1 years) were included in the LRR cohort at a mean follow-up of 57 (range 2-140; standard deviation (SD) +/- A 41.2) months. The LVR group consisted of 40 patients (36 females and 4 males) with a mean age of 67.0 years and a mean follow-up of 42 (range 2-82; SD +/- A 23.8) months. A significant reduction in constipation was observed in both cohorts after surgery: 57 versus 21 % after LRR and 55 versus 23 % after LVR (both P <0.05). The incidence of incontinence also significantly decreased in both groups: 15 % after LVR (55 % before surgery) and 4 % after LRR (61 % before surgery). Direct comparison of these two techniques showed a trend to significance (P = 0.09). Significantly, more complications occurred after LRR (n = 9: 1 major, 8 minor) then after LVR (n = 3: 2 major, 1 minor) (P <0.05). Both LVR and LRR are effective for the treatment for RP. Although both techniques offer significant improvements in functional symptoms, continence may be better after LRR. However, LRR also had a higher complication rate then did LVR

Evaluation and surgical treatment of rectal prolapse: an international survey

Validated guidelines for the surgical and non-surgical treatment of rectal prolapse (RP) do not exist. The aim of this international questionnaire survey was to provide an overview of the evaluation, follow-up and treatment of patients with an internal or external RP. A 36-question questionnaire in English about the evaluation, treatment and follow-up of patients with RP was distributed amongst surgeons attending the congresses of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and the European Society of Coloproctology in 2010. It was subsequently sent to all the members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the European Society of Coloproctology by e-mail. In all, 391 surgeons in 50 different countries completed the questionnaire. Evaluation, surgical treatment and follow-up of patients with RP differed considerably. For healthy patients with an external RP, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was the most popular treatment in Europe, whereas laparoscopic resection rectopexy was favoured in North America. There was consensus only on frail and/or elderly patients with an external prolapse, with a preference for a perineal technique. After failure of conservative therapy, internal RP was mostly treated by laparoscopic resection rectopexy in North America. In Europe, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection were the most popular techniques for these patients. The treatment of RP differs between surgeons, countries and regions. Guidelines are lacking. Prospective comparative studies are warranted that may result in universally accepted protocol

High-grade hemorrhoids requiring surgical treatment are common after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

Purpose: To describe patients developing grade III and IV hemorrhoids requiring surgery after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and to explore the relationship between developing such hemorrhoids and recurrence of rectal prolapse after LVMR. Methods: All consecutive patients receiving LVMR at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands, between 2004 and 2013 were analyzed. Kaplan–Meier estimates were calculated for recurrences. Results: A total of 420 patients underwent LVMR. Sixty-five of these patients (actuarial 5-year incidence 24.3, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 18.6–30.0) developed symptomatic grade III/IV hemorrhoids requiring stapled or excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Re-do surgery for recurrent grade III/IV hemorrhoids was required for 15 of the 65 patients (actuarial 5-year recurrence rate 40.6, 95 % CI 23.2–58.0) after the primary hemorrhoidectomy. Three of the 65 patients developed an external rectal prolapse (ERP) recurrence and eight an internal rectal prolapse (IRP) recurrence. This generated a 5-year recurrence rate of 25.3 % (95 % CI 0–53.9) for ERP recurrence and 24.4 % (95 % CI 9.1–39.7) for IRP recurrence. The rest of the LVMR cohort not receiving additional surgery for hemorrhoids (n = 355) showed significantly lower actuarial 5-year ERP (0.8 %, p = 0.011) and IRP (11 %, p = 0.020) recurrence rates. Conclusion: High-grade hemorrhoids requiring surgery may be common after LVMR. The development of high-grade hemorrhoids after LVMR might be considered a predictor of rectal prolapse recurrence

Consensus Statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse, rectal procidentia, “complete” prolapse or “third-degree” prolapse is the full-thickness prolapse of the rectal wall through the anal canal and has a significant impact on quality of life. The incidence of rectal prolapse has been estimated to be approximately 2.5 per 100,000 inhabitants with a clear predominance among elderly women. The aim of this consensus statement was to provide evidence-based data to allow an individualized and appropriate management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse. The strategy used to search for evidence was based on application of electronic sources such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Review Library, CINAHL and EMBASE. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Gastroenterology’s Chronic Constipation Task Force. Five evidence levels were defined. The recommendations were graded A, B, and C