Efficiency and safety of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (a systematic review)
https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2022-21-2-122-131
Abstract
Aim: to assess the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in patients with rectocele and rectal prolapse.
Materials and methods: a systematic review of the literature on the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in patients with rectocele and/or rectal prolapse. After compiling a search query, 2716 publications were found in the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane library, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science and eLibrary databases. Twenty-four papers were selected according to the inclusion criteria for the review, with a total number of 2101 operated patients.
Results: the follow up period after surgery ranged 30.1 (12-74) months. In 20 of 34 studies, the median age of patients was over 60 years, with a median of 62.1 years. The mean operative time was 122.3 minutes (85 to 200 minutes). Complications were revealed in 138 patients (6.5 % observations), recurrence — in 4.1 %. A significant improvement in the symptoms of obstructive defecation was noted in 79.6 %.
Conclusion: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is an effective method for posterior pelvic floor compartment prolapse in terms of both anatomical and functional results. It is safe and has a low risk of complications. However, further research is required to develop indications for the use of this proctdure as a “gold standard”.
About the Authors
A. G. Khitaryan
FSBEI HE “Rostov State Medical University”; Private Healthcare Institution “Clinical Hospital” Russian Railways-Medicine”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander G. Khitaryan
Department of Surgical Diseases № 3
344022
Nakhichevansky lane, 29
344011
Varfolomeeva street, 92a
Rostov-on-Don
A. A. Golovina
FSBEI HE “Rostov State Medical University”; Private Healthcare Institution “Clinical Hospital” Russian Railways-Medicine”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anastasia A. Golovina
Department of Surgical Diseases № 3
344022
Nakhichevansky lane, 29
344011
Varfolomeeva street, 92a
Rostov-on-Don
S. A. Kovalev
FSBEI HE “Rostov State Medical University”; Private Healthcare Institution “Clinical Hospital” Russian Railways-Medicine”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergey A. Kovalev
Department of Surgical Diseases № 3
344022
Nakhichevansky lane, 29
344011
Varfolomeeva street, 92a
Rostov-on-Don
S. S. Burtsev
FSBEI HE “Rostov State Medical University”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Spartak S. Burtsev
Department of Surgical Diseases № 3
344022
Nakhichevansky lane, 29
Rostov-on-Don
References
1. Xynos E., et al. Functional results after surgery for overt rectal prolapse. Acta Chir Iugosl. 2012; 59: 21–24.
2. Formijne Jonkers H. A., Draaisma W. A., Wexner S. D., Broeders I. A. M. J., et al. Evaluation and surgical treatment of rectal prolapse: an international survey. Color Dis. 2013; 15 (1): 115–119.
3. Speed J. M., Zhang C. A., Gurland B., & Enemchukwu E. Trends in the Diagnosis and Management of Combined Rectal and Vaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Urology. 2021; 150: 188–193. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.05.010
4. Senapati R. G., Gray L. J., Middleton J., Harding R. K., et al. PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. 05 March 2013. DOI: 10.1111/codi.12177
5. D’Hoore A., Cadoni R., Penninckx F. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 2004; 91 (11): 1500–1505.
6. van Iersel J. J., Paulides T. J., Verheijen P. M. et al. Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse. World J Gastroenterol. 2016; 22 (21): 4977–4987.
7. Emile S. H., Elfeki H., Youssef M., Farid M., et al. Abdominal rectopexy for the treatment of internal rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2017; 19 (1): 013–024. DOI: 10.1111/codi.13574
8. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D. G. The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;(6):e1000097. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2535
9. Albayati S., Morgan M. J., Turner C. E. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception using a biological mesh. Colorectal Dis. 2017; 19: 857–862.
10. Benoist S., Taffinder N., Gould S., Chang A., Darzi A. Functional results two years after laparoscopic rectopexy. Am J Surg. 2001; 182: 168–173.
11. Bjerke T., Mynster T. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in an elderly population with external rectal prolapse: clinical and anal manometric results. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014; 29 (10): 1257–1262. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-014-1960-5
12. Boons P., Collinson R., Cunningham C., Lindsey I. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse improves constipation and avoids de novo constipation. Colorectal Dis. 2010; 12 (6): 526–532. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01859.x
13. Brunner M., Roth H., Günther K., Grützmann R., et al. Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh: short-term functional results. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018; 33: 449–457.
14. Byrne C. M., Smith S. R., Solomon M. J., Young J. M., et al. Long-term functional outcomes after laparoscopic and open rectopexy for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008; 51: 1597–1604.
15. Chandra A., Singh P., Kumar S., Chopra N., et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a viable option in procidentia with redundant sigmoid – an Indian perspective. J Minim Access Surg. 2018; 14 (4): 304–310. DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_106_17
16. Collinson R., Wijffels N., Cunningham C., Lindsey I. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse: short-term functional results. Colorectal Dis. 2010; 12: 97–104.
17. Consten E. C., van Iersel J. J., Verheijen P. M., Broeders I. A., et al. Long-term outcome after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: an observational study of 919 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 2015; 262 (5): 742–747. DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001401
18. D’Hoore A., Penninckx F. Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo) pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Surg Endosc. 2006 Dec; 20 (12): 1919–23. PMID: 17031741. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-005-0485-y
19. Faucheron J. L., Voirin D., Riboud R., Waroquet P. A., et al. Laparoscopic anterior rectopexy to the promontory for full-thickness rectal prolapse in 175 consecutive patients: short- and longterm follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012; 55: 660–665.
20. Franceschilli L., Varvaras D., Capuano I., Ciangola C. I., et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for the treatment of obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse: a critical appraisal of the first 100 cases. Tech Coloproctol. 2015; 19: 209–219.
21. Formijne Jonkers H. A., Maya A., Draaisma W. A., Bemelman W. A., et al. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol. 2014; 18 (7): 641–646. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-014-1122-3
22. Fu C. W., Stevenson A. R. Risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017; 60 (2): 178–186. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000710
23. Gleditsch D., Wexels W. A., Nesbakken A. Surgical options and trends in treating rectal prolapse: long-term results in a 19-year follow-up study. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018; 403: 991–998.
24. Gosselink M. P., Joshi H., Adusumilli S., van Onkelen R. S., et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for faecal incontinence: equivalent benefit is seen in internal and external rectal prolapse. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015; 19 (3): 558–563. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-014-2696-9
25. Hidaka J., Elfeki H., Duelund-Jakobsen J., Laurberg S., et al. Functional outcome after laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: six-year follow-up of a double-blind, randomized single-center study. E Clinical Medicine. 2019; 16: 18–22.
26. Lechaux D., Trebuchet G., Siproudhis L., Campion J. P. Laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a single-institution retrospective study evaluating surgical outcome. Surg Endosc. 2005; 19: 514–518.
27. Luglio G., Tarquini R., Giglio M. C., Sollazzo V., et al. Ventral mesh rec-topexy versus conventional suture technique: a single-institutional experience. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017; 29 (Suppl 1): 79–82.
28. Lundby L., Iversen L. H., Buntzen S., Wara P., et al. Bowel function after laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a double-blind, randomised single-centre study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Dec; 1 (4): 291–297. Epub 2016 Oct 4. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30085-1
29. Madbouly K. M., Youssef M. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy versus laparoscopic wells rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse: long-term results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018; 28 (1): 1–6. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2017.0012
30. Maggiori L., Bretagnol F., Ferron M., Panis Y. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective long-term evaluation of functional results and quality of life. Tech Coloproctol. 2013; 17: 431–436.
31. Mantoo S., Podevin J., Regenet N., Rigaud J., et al. Is robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation? Colorectal Dis. 2013; 15: e469–e475.
32. Mehmood R. K., Parker J., Bhuvimanian L., Qasem E., et al. Short-term outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Is robotic superior? Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014; 29 (9): 1113–1118. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-014-1937-4
33. Ogilvie J. W., Stevenson A. R. L., Powar M. Case-matched series of a non-cross-linked biologic versus non-absorbable mesh in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014; 29: 1477–1483.
34. Owais A. E., Sumrien H., Mabey K., McCarthy K., et al. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in male patients with internal or external rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis. 2014; 16: 995–1000.
35. Portier G., Kirzin S., Cabarrot P., Queralto M., et al. The effect of abdominal ventral rectopexy on faecal incontinence and constipation in patients with internal intra-anal rectal intussusception. Colorectal Dis. 2011; 13: 914–917.
36. Randall J., Smyth E., McCarthy K., Dixon A. R. Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis. 2014; 16 (11): 914–919. DOI: 10.1111/codi.12741
37. Rautio T., Makela-Kaikkonen J., Vaarala M., Kairaluoma M., et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in male patients with external rectal prolapse is associated with a high reoperation rate. Tech Coloproctol. 2016; 20 (10): 715–720. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-016-1528-1
38. Tsunoda A., Takahashi T., Ohta T., Kusanagi H. Quality of life after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Colorectal Dis. 2016; 18: 0301–0310.
39. Tsunoda A., Takahashi T., Matsuda S., Oka N., et al. Midterm functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2020; 13: 25–32.
40. Wahed S., Ahmad M., Mohiuddin K., Katory M., et al. Short-term results for laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biological mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Colorectal Dis. 2012; 14: 1242–1247.
41. Wijffels N., Cunningham C., Dixon A., Greenslade G., et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse is safe and effective in the elderly. Does this make perineal procedures obsolete? Colorectal Dis. 2011; 13 (5): 561–566. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02242.x
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Khitaryan A.G., Golovina A.A., Kovalev S.A., Burtsev S.S. Efficiency and safety of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (a systematic review). Koloproktologia. 2022;21(2):122-131. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2022-21-2-122-131
Views:
779
Email this article 
