External rectal prolapse: abdominal or perineal repair for men? A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: External rectal prolapse is a relatively rare disease, in which male patients account for a minority. The selection of abdominal repair or perineal repair for male patients has rarely been investigated. METHODS: Fifty-one male patients receiving abdominal repair (laparoscopic ventral rectopexy) or perineal repair (Delorme or Altemeier procedures) at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between March 2013 and September 2019 were retrospectively analysed. We compared the recurrence, complication rate, post-operative defecation disorder, length of stay, and quality of life between the abdominal and perineal groups. RESULTS: Of the 51 patients, 45 had a complete follow-up, with a median of 48.5 months (range, 22.8-101.8 months). A total of 35 patients were under age 40 years. The complication rate associated with abdominal repair was less than that associated with perineal repair (0% vs 20.7%, P = 0.031) and the recurrence rate was also lower (9.5% vs 41.7%, P = 0.018). Multivariate analysis showed that perineal repair (odds ratio, 9.827; 95% confidence interval, 1.296-74.50; P = 0.027) might be a risk factor for recurrence. Moreover, only perineal repair significantly improved post-operative constipation status (preoperative vs post-operative, 72.4% vs 25.0%, P = 0.001). There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. No patient's sexual function was affected by the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical approaches were safe in men. Compared with perineal repair, the complication rate and recurrence rate for abdominal repair were lower. However, perineal repair was better able to correct constipation.

Does Postoperative Anxiety/Depression Impair the Long-Term Functional Outcomes of Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy for Obstructed Defecation?

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between postoperative anxiety/depression and functional outcomes of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for obstructed defecation (OD). Methods: Patients who received LVR for OD between March 2014 and July 2020 were enrolled. Patient demographics were recorded before surgery. The validated Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) and Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QoL) were evaluated to assess functional outcomes and QoL, respectively. The self-rating anxiety scale and self-rating depression scale were used to measure anxiety and depression, respectively. Results: Twenty-five patients were recruited. Significant improvement was found at last available follow-up (LAFU) in CCCS (P = .001), and three PAC-QoL subsets, physical discomfort (P = .003), satisfaction (P = .014), and worries/concerns (P = .033) during follow-up of 60 (11-84) months. In the patients with anxiety/depression (n = 11), significant improvement was found at LAFU in CCCS (P = .024) and the PAC-QoL subset, psychosocial discomfort (P = .038). In the patients without anxiety/depression (n = 14), improvement was found in CCCS (P = .009) and the PAC-QoL subset, physical discomfort (P = .018). Conclusion: The long-term functional outcomes of LVR for OD in patients with overt pelvic structural abnormalities are not undermined by postoperative anxiety/depression.

Predictive Factors for Recurrence of External Rectal Prolapse after Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate factors that contribute to the recurrence of external rectal prolapse (ERP) following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR). METHODS: All patients who underwent LVR using synthetic meshes between 2011 and 2018 were prospectively included. A standard questionnaire including the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) and Constipation Scoring System (CSS) was administered preoperatively and postoperatively. Defecography was performed 6 months postoperatively. Univariate and backward stepwise multivariate Cox analysis was performed to determine the prognostic factors of recurrence. RESULTS: In total, 132 patients with a median follow-up of 46 months were included. The overall recurrence rate was 6.8% (n = 9), as confirmed by defecography at 6 months in six of the patients. None of the patients developed mesh erosion. FISI and CSS scores were significantly reduced at 3 months and remained significantly reduced for 3 years. Multivariate analyses revealed that the predictors of recurrence included male sex (hazards ratio, 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-43.0) and age >80 years (hazards ratio, 10.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-86.3). Eight patients with recurrence underwent surgery via Delorme's procedure (n = 7) and posterior rectopexy (n = 1). Two patients with new-onset rectoanal intussusception and one with uncorrected sigmoidocoele underwent repeat LVR. CONCLUSIONS: LVR is effective in treating ERP with low morbidity and low recurrence. Male patients and patients older than 80 years are at increased risk of recurrence. Hence, the LVR technique should be modified or coupled with other perineal procedures when treating ERP, especially in male patients.

Long-term annual functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectoanal intussusception and/or rectocele: evaluation of sustained improvement.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term annual functional results and quality of life (QOL) after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for rectoanal intussusception (RAI) and/or rectocele. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The study was conducted on patients who underwent LVR for RAI and/or rectocele at our institution between February 2012 and July 2015. The Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), Constipation Scoring System (CSS), and QOL instruments (i.e., 36-item Short-form Health Survey [SF-36], Patient Assessment of Constipation-QOL [PAC-QOL] scale, and Fecal Incontinence-QOL [FIQL]) were administered before and annually after surgery. The sustainability of substantial symptom improvement (reduction of at least 50% in CSS or FISI scores) postoperatively was evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (median age 76 [range 60-93] years, 48 women [94%]) were analyzed. No mortality or major morbidity occurred. After a median follow-up of 60 months (range 12-84 months), no mesh-related complications occurred. The median CSS and FISI scores were significantly reduced at 1 year and remained significantly reduced for 7 years. In patients who reported symptom scores ≥ 3 times postoperatively, sustained improvement of constipation and fecal incontinence was found in about 50% (18/38) and 75% (26/35) of relevant patients, respectively. All PAC-QOL and FIQL scales significantly improved over time for 5 years. Of the SF-36 scales, four showed significant improvement at 1 year but none was significantly improved after 3 years, except for the social functioning scale. CONCLUSIONS: LVR for RAI and/or rectocele was associated with low morbidity and long-term improvement in symptom-specific QOL. The sustainability of postoperative improvement in fecal incontinence was satisfactory, and that in constipation was fair.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using the transanal vacuum test for complete rectal prolapse.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was performed in 84 patients with complete rectal prolapse from January 2016 to December 2019. In the initial 27 cases, three cases had recurrence, especially in cases of a long rectal prolapse measuring over 10 cm. In order to avoid recurrence, the transanal vacuum test was performed following the dissection of the rectovaginal septum towards the pelvic floor. The disappearance of rectal prolapse is confirmed by the intraoperative transanal vacuum test. When the posterior wall of the rectum showed the presence of prolapse according to the transanal vacuum test, then laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was converted to laparoscopic posterior rectopexy. In 94 cases in which laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was attempted, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was completed in 57 cases, while the procedure was converted to laparoscopic posterior rectopexy in 37 cases. The recurrence rate following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy decreased from 11.1% (3/27) to 1.7% (1/57) after beginning to use the transanal vacuum test. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using the transanal vacuum test is therefore considered to be a useful technique to reduce postoperative recurrence.

Midterm functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse.

INTRODUCTION: Although long-term crude outcomes of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse (ERP) have been documented, repetitive functional and quality of life (QOL) assessments are scarce. This study assessed midterm annual functional results and QOL after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for ERP. METHODS: This study consisted of 58 patients and was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, the Constipation Scoring System, and QOL instruments (ie 36-item Short-Form Health Survey and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale) were administered before and after operation. RESULTS: There was no mortality or major morbidity. After a median follow-up of 49 months (6-92 months), recurrence of ERP was noted in one patient (2%). There were no mesh-related complications. The median Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score was significantly reduced at 3 months (34 [10-61] vs 12 [0-50], P < 0.0001) and remained significantly reduced for 5 years. The median Constipation Scoring System score was significantly reduced at 3 months (14 [9-20] vs 7 [0-16], P < 0.0001) and remained significantly reduced for 4 years. No patients developed new-onset constipation. All of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scales significantly improved overtime for 4 years. All of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scales were significantly improved at 3 and 6 months, but none of the scales significantly improved after 2 years. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for ERP was associated with low morbidity, low recurrence, and a midterm improvement in function and fecal incontinence-specific QOL.

Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh for recurrent disorders of the posterior pelvic organ compartment.

PURPOSE: Recurrent prolapse of the posterior pelvic organ compartment presents a management challenge, with the best surgical procedure remaining unclear. We present functional outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) with biological mesh in patients with recurrence. METHODS: We analyzed data from 30 patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse who underwent VMR with biological mesh from August 2012 to January 2018. Data included patient demographics and intra- and postoperative findings; functional outcome as assessed by Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Score Longo (ODS), and Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS); and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: CCCS, CCIS, and ODS were significantly improved at 6-12 months postoperatively and at last follow-up. Patient satisfaction (visual analog scale [VAS] 6.7 [0 to 10]), subjective symptoms (+ 3.4 [scale - 5 to + 5]), and quality of life improvement (+ 3.0 [scale from - 5 to + 5]) were high at last follow-up. The rates of morbidity and major complications were 13% and 3%, respectively. There were no mesh-related complications or deaths. Difference in type of previous surgery (abdominal or transanal/perineal) had no significant effect on results. CONCLUSIONS: VMR with biological mesh is a safe and effective option for patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse. It reduces functional symptoms, has a low complication rate, and promotes patient satisfaction.

Short term outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse: case series.

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is a technique gaining more recognition for the management of pelvic floor disorders, such as external rectal prolapse (ERP), high grade internal rectal prolapse (IRP) and rectocele. LVMR also allows correction of coexisted pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and functional outcome of LVMR for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who underwent LVMR from February 2014 to October 2017 were included into the study. The patients were evaluated preoperatively and three months postoperatively. Surgical complications and functional results in terms of fecal incontinence (measured with the Wexner Incontinence Score= WIS) and constipation (measured with the Wexner Constipation Score= WCS) were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty (4 males) patients underwent LVMR. Seventeen (56.6%) patients had complex pelvic organ prolapse according to MRI findings. Median operative time and postoperative stay were 110 minutes and 4 days, respectively. No mesh-related complication and recurrence were observed. Before surgery, 21 (70%) patients had complained about symptoms of obstructed defecation. WCS decreased significantly from median 19 to 6 (p <0.001). Preoperative median WIS of 9 patients was 14 and went down to 6 postoperatively (p= 0.008). WCS significantly improved after LVMR in patients with symptomatic rectocele combined with enterocele or sigmoidocele (p= 0.005), and significant improvement was also observed in patients with symptomatic rectocele combined with gynecologic organ prolapse, preoperative median WCS was 18 and the postoperative value fell to 8 (p= 0.005). CONCLUSION: LVMR is an effective surgical option for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse with short-term follow-up.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in patients with fecal incontinence associated with rectoanal intussusception: prospective evaluation of clinical, physiological and morphological changes.

BACKGROUND: Physiological changes after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) in patients with rectoanal intussusception (RAI) remain unclear. This study was undertaken to evaluate physiological and morphological changes after LVR for RAI, and to study clinical outcomes following LVR with special reference to fecal incontinence (FI). METHODS: The study was conducted on patients who had LVR for RAI between February 2012 and December 2016 at our institution Patients with RAI and FI were included in the study. Patients with RAI and obstructed defecation and those with RAI and neurologic FI were not included. The patients had anorectal manometry preoperatively, and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Defecography was performed before and 6 months after the procedure. FI was evaluated using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI). RESULTS: There were 34 patients (median age 77 years (range 60-93) years). Thirty-two patients (94%) were female and the median number of vaginal deliveries was 2 (range 0-5). Neither maximum resting pressure nor maximum squeeze pressure increased postoperatively. There was an overall increase in both defecatory desire volume (median preoperative 75 ml vs. 90 ml at 12 months; p = 0.002) and maximum tolerated volume (median preoperative 145 ml vs.175 ml at 12 months; p = 0.002). Postoperatively, RAI was eliminated in all patients but one, although 13 had residual rectorectal intussusception found at defecography. There was an overall reduction in both rectocele size (median preop 29 mm vs. postop 10 mm; p = 0.008) and pelvic floor descent (median preop 26 mm vs. postop 20 mm; p = 0.005). Twelve months after surgery, a reduction of at least 50% was observed in the FISI score for 31 incontinent patients (91%). CONCLUSIONS: LVR for RAI produced adequate improvement of FI, and successful anatomical correction of RAI was confirmed by postoperative proctography. Postoperative increase in the rectal volume may have a positive effect on continence.

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.

AIM: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is potentially a safe and effective operation to correct pelvic organ prolapse and to treat obstructive defaecation and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. This study aimed to evaluate, in a prospective, consecutive cohort of patients, the long-term clinical outcomes following LVMR, patient-reported functional and quality of life outcomes, and urinary and sexual dysfunction. METHOD: Data on 224 patients who underwent LVMR with Permacol™ biological mesh were collected prospectively from May 2008 to October 2016. Outcome measures were complications, recurrence, mortality, patient satisfaction, patient-reported functional and quality of life outcomes, and urinary and sexual dysfunction. Scores were compared using the two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was no mortalities associated with LVMR in this series; complications occurred in 10.7% of patients (4.9% early, 5.8% late). Mesh-related morbidity was 0.45% and vaginal suture-related morbidity was 1.33%. Recurrence occurred in 25 patients (11.4%), 5% at 12 months, 10.7% at 5 years. Significant improvement in patient-reported functional outcomes were seen (P < 0.001) for both constipation and faecal incontinence symptoms. Furthermore, significant improvement in quality of life outcomes for patients with constipation, faecal incontinence and prolapse persisted through follow-up (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was positive for > 90% of patients during follow-up. Symptoms of stress urinary incontinence, urge incontinence and dyspareunia improved significantly postoperatively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: LVMR using Permacol is associated with low morbidity and mortality, recurrence and, additionally, significantly improved constipation, faecal incontinence and prolapse functional and quality of life outcomes, with associated improvement in urogynaecological symptoms.

Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Wells Rectopexy for Complete Rectal Prolapse: Long-Term Results.

BACKGROUND: There is no agreement about which laparoscopic rectopexy technique is best for treating complete rectal prolapse. Purpose was to compare functional outcome, the recurrence rate, and quality of life in patients treated with laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) versus the laparoscopic Wells rectopexy (LWR) for complete rectal prolapse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients who presented with complete rectal prolapse. Patients were divided into two cohorts: first one had LVR and the other one had LWR. Exclusion criteria were previous major abdominal surgery, slow transit constipation, Hirschsprung's disease, inflammatory bowel disease, pregnancy, and patients on drugs that cause constipation. Patients were assessed preoperatively by clinical examination to evaluate constipation using the Wexner constipation scale (WCS), incontinence using the Wexner incontinence score (WIS), and quality of life using the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQOL). The primary outcome measures were disappearance of prolapse and recurrences. Secondary outcome parameters were operative time, complications, length of hospital stay, effect on perineal descent, functional outcome (constipation and continence), and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 74 patients (mean age of 55 years) with complete rectal prolapse had LVR (n = 41) and LWR (n = 33). Sixty (81%) patients were females. Operative time was significantly longer in LVR (122 minutes versus 105 minutes; P = .001). Also, length of stay was significantly longer in LVR (4.5 days versus 3.7 days; P = .04). Recurrences were reported in 1 patient in each group. Perineal descent improved >50% in defecogram 6 months postoperatively in 79% in LVR versus 21% in LWR. In LVR, mean WCS decreased from 11.3 to 5.1 postoperatively (P < .0001), while in LWR it decreased from 8.9 to 6.9 (P = .11). Mean WIS decreased in LVR from 5.9 to 3.8, P = .01, while in LWR, it decreased from 6.6 to 2.8; P = .001. GIQOL improved from 74.4 to 124.9 in LVR and from 79.3 to 112.6 in LWR. The change in both groups was statistically significant (P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, both LVR and LWR successfully and safely corrected the prolapse and prevented recurrence in patients after long-term follow-up. Operative time and hospital length of stay are significantly shorter in LWR. High incontinence scores and age >70 are potential predictors of bad continence postoperatively. LVR appears to be more suitable for patients with a high constipation score and abnormal perineal descent.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for obstructed defecation in patients with overt pelvic structural abnormalities-a Chinese pilot study.

AIM: As laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) gained increasing popularity in the past decade, studies from non-western area remain rare. The aim of this pilot study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LVR for obstructed defecation (OD) in Chinese patients with overt pelvic structural abnormalities. METHODS: A series of 19 consecutive patients is presented undergoing LVR for OD. All patients showed various forms of pelvic structural abnormalities which were verified by dynamic defecography exam. Data was prospectively recorded and the functional outcomes were evaluated using the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) and Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Score (PAC-QoL). RESULTS: Pelvic structural abnormalities of the 19 patients included external rectal prolapse (ER) in 10.5% (2/19), high grade internal rectal prolapse (IR) in 57.8% (11/19), rectocele in 52.6% (10/19), enterocele in 15.7% (3/19), cystocele/vaginal prolapse in 15.7 (3/19), descending perineum (DP) in 63.5% (12/19). 89.4% patients (17/19) showed at least two co-existed abnormalities and 15.7% (3/19) showed multicompartmental abnormalities. The mean follow-up was 9 months (range 1-18). No mesh-related complication was observed. At last available follow-up (LAFU), improvement of OD symptom was observed in 15 (78.9%) patients, the mean scores of CCCS decreased from 17 to 10 (p < 0.05), all four subsets of PAC-QoL scores improved, and three of them (physical discomfort, worries and concerns, satisfaction) showed statistical significance (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy appears to be a safe and effective procedure for obstructed defecation in Chinese patients with overt pelvic structural abnormalities in short-term follow-up.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in male patients with external rectal prolapse is associated with a high reoperation rate.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy has been used to treat male patients with external rectal prolapse, but evidence to support this approach is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of this new abdominal rectopexy surgical technique in men. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study. Adult male patients who were operated on for external rectal prolapse using ventral rectopexy in five tertiary hospitals in Finland between 2006 and 2014 were included in the study. Patient demographics, detailed operative, postoperative and short-term follow-up data were collected from patient registers in participating hospitals. A questionnaire and informed consent form was sent to all patients. The questionnaire included scores for anal incontinence, obstructed defecation syndrome, urinary symptoms and sexual dysfunction. The main outcome measure was the incidence of recurrent rectal prolapse. Surgical morbidity, the need for surgical repair due to recurrent symptoms and functional outcomes were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 52 adult male patients with symptoms caused by external rectal prolapse underwent ventral rectopexy. The questionnaire response rate was 64.4 %. Baseline clinical characteristics and perioperative results were similar in the responder and non-responder groups. A total of 9 (17.3 %) patients faced complications. There were two (3.8 %) serious surgical complications during the 30-day period after surgery that necessitated reoperation. None of the complications were mesh related. Recurrence of the prolapse was noticed in nine patients (17 %), and postoperative mucosal anal prolapse symptoms persisted in 11 patients (21 %). As a result, the reoperation rate was high. Altogether, 17 patients (33 %) underwent reoperation during the follow-up period due to postoperative complications or recurrent rectal or mucosal prolapse. According to the postoperative questionnaire data, patients under 40 had good functional results in terms of anal continence, defecation, urinary functions and sexual activity. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is a safe surgical procedure in male patients with external prolapse. However, a high overall reoperation rate was noticed due to recurrent rectal and residual mucosal prolapse. This suggests that the ventral rectopexy technique should be modified or combined with other abdominal or perineal methods when treating male rectal prolapse patients.

The viewpoint-specific failure of modern 3D displays in laparoscopic surgery.

PURPOSE: Surgeons conventionally assume the optimal viewing position during 3D laparoscopic surgery and may not be aware of the potential hazards to team members positioned across different suboptimal viewing positions. The first aim of this study was to map the viewing positions within a standard operating theatre where individuals may experience visual ghosting (i.e. double vision images) from crosstalk. The second aim was to characterize the standard viewing positions adopted by instrument nurses and surgical assistants during laparoscopic pelvic surgery and report the associated levels of visual ghosting and discomfort. METHODS: In experiment 1, 15 participants viewed a laparoscopic 3D display from 176 different viewing positions around the screen. In experiment 2, 12 participants (randomly assigned to four clinically relevant viewing positions) viewed laparoscopic suturing in a simulation laboratory. In both experiments, we measured the intensity of visual ghosting. In experiment 2, participants also completed the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. RESULTS: We mapped locations within the dimensions of a standard operating theatre at which visual ghosting may result during 3D laparoscopy. Head height relative to the bottom of the image and large horizontal eccentricities away from the surface normal were important contributors to high levels of visual ghosting. Conventional viewing positions adopted by instrument nurses yielded high levels of visual ghosting and severe discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: The conventional viewing positions adopted by surgical team members during laparoscopic pelvic operations are suboptimal for viewing 3D laparoscopic displays, and even short periods of viewing can yield high levels of discomfort.

Recovery of gastric ileus following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy within an enhanced recovery protocol.

PURPOSE: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol has had limited adoption in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR), and the extent of gastric ileus shortly after LVR remains unknown. This study was designed to assess the degree of gastric emptying shortly after LVR within an ERAS protocol. METHODS: From August 2012 to June 2014, 40 patients diagnosed with external or internal rectal prolapse were recruited. All patients underwent LVR within an ERAS protocol. Carbohydrate solution (CS) was administered before and 5 h after surgery on the same day. The pyloric area (PA) was measured using ultrasonography before and after each CS intake. RESULTS: The PA was measured in 34 patients. The PA measured prior to CS intake, before surgery, was not significantly different from that after surgery. The rate of increase in the PA, which was calculated by the PA measured 1 h after CS intake divided by the PA measured prior to CS intake before surgery, was not significantly different from that after surgery. The postoperative hospital stay was 1 (1-2) day, and 36 patients (90 %) were discharged on the first postoperative afternoon. CONCLUSION: Postoperative gastric ileus was resolved in most cases within 5 h after LVR under an ERAS protocol.

New-onset rectoanal intussusception may not result in symptomatic improvement after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to assess defecatory function in patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for external rectal prolapse (ERP). METHODS: Thirty-one patients who underwent evacuation proctography 6 months postoperatively were assessed. Preoperative proctography had been performed in 21 patients of these patients. Defecatory function was evaluated using the constipation scoring system (CSS) and fecal incontinence severity index (FISI). RESULTS: The findings of postoperative proctography revealed no full-thickness ERP in any patient, although in 10 patients the ERP was replaced by rectoanal intussusception (RAI). Of the 31 patients, 30 presented with fecal incontinence preoperatively. Ten of 30 had new-onset RAI. Six months postoperatively, a reduction of at least 50 % in the FISI score of the patients with new-onset RAI tended to be significantly smaller than in the patients without RAI (6/10 vs. 18/20, p = 0.141). Seventeen patients presented with obstructed defecation preoperatively. Seven of them had new-onset RAI. Six months postoperatively, a reduction of at least 50 % in their CSS score in the patients with new-onset RAI was significantly smaller than in patients without RAI (0/7 vs. 8/10, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Evacuation proctography showed new-onset RAI in some patients with ERP who underwent LVR, which was associated with a lack of symptomatic improvement.

Quality of life after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

AIM: This study evaluated continence, constipation and quality of life (QOL) before and after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) METHOD: Between February 2012 and July 2014, patients who underwent LVR for external rectal prolapse (ERP) and/or rectoanal intussusception (RAI) were prospectively included. A standard questionnaire including the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), the Constipation Scoring System (CSS) and QOL instruments (Short-Form 36 Health Survey, Fecal Incontinence QOL scale, Patient Assessment of Constipation-QOL) were administered before and after operation. Psychiatric patients and those with dementia were excluded from the study. Defaecography was performed 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included in the study period and 44 (19 with ERP, 25 with RAI) completed the follow-up questionnaire and were reviewed after a median of 26 (range 12-42) months. There was no recurrent ERP. Postoperative defaecography showed new-onset RAI in 6 and persistent RAI in 1. One year after surgery, incontinence was improved in 30/39 patients (77%) and constipation in 19/32 (59%). The FISI scores reduced between preoperative status and 1 year after surgery [32 (13-61) vs 11 (0-33), P < 0.0001]. The CSS scores also reduced [preoperative 12 (5-18) vs 1 year 5 (1-12), P < 0.0001]. Compared with the preoperative scores, almost all of the scale scores on the three kinds of QOL instruments significantly improved over time. The presence of new-onset or persistent RAI did not have an adverse effect on the improvement of QOL. CONCLUSION: LVR improves both generic and symptom-specific QOL with good functional results.