Long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal robotic reconstructive pelvic floor surgery: a prospective study and overview of the literature.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The use of synthetic mesh in transvaginal pelvic floor surgery has been subject to debate internationally. Although mesh erosion appears to be less associated with an abdominal approach, the long-term outcome has not been studied intensively. This study was set up to determine the long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal pelvic reconstructive surgery. METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. All consecutive female patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and sacrocolporectopexy in 2011 and 2012 were included. Primary outcome was mesh erosion. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation (6 weeks, 1 year, 5 years) with a clinical examination and questionnaire regarding pelvic floor symptoms was performed. Mesh-related complications were assessed using a transparent vaginal speculum, proctoscopy, and digital vaginal and rectal examination. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for mesh erosion. A review of the literature on mesh exposure after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy was performed (≥12 months' follow-up). RESULTS: Ninety-six of the 130 patients included (73.8%) were clinically examined. Median follow-up time was 48.1 months (range 36.0-62.1). Three mesh erosions were diagnosed (3.1%; Kaplan-Meier 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0-11.0): one bladder erosion for which mesh resection and an omental patch interposition were performed, and two asymptomatic vaginal erosions (at 42.7 and 42.3 months) treated with estrogen cream in one. Additionally, 22 patients responded solely by questionnaire and/or telephone; none reported mesh-related complaints. The literature, mostly based on retrospective studies, described a median mesh erosion rate of 1.9% (range 0-13.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term rate of mesh erosion following an abdominally placed synthetic graft is low.

Mesh Exposure After Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pelvic Floor Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the mesh exposure rate after robot-assisted laparoscopic pelvic floor surgery for the treatment of female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in a large cohort. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Two large teaching hospitals with a tertiary referral function for pelvic floor disorders. PATIENTS: Patients with symptomatic POP and simplified POP quantification (S-POP) stage ≥2. Patients with a history of mesh repair or concomitant insertion of a tension-free vaginal tape were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or robot-assisted laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with a sacrocervicopexy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A blinded vaginal examination with the aid of a transparent speculum was performed to look for mesh-related complications. Mesh exposures were described following the International Urogynecological Association/International Continence Society classification system. One hundred and ninety-two patients were included, of whom 166 (86.5%) were seen for follow-up examination. The median duration of follow-up was 15.7 months (range, 8.2-44.4 months). Two vaginal mesh exposures (1.2%) were detected, both of which were treated in the outpatient clinic. One patient without any complaints had a suture exposure, which was removed in the outpatient clinic. CONCLUSION: The safety of the use of mesh in pelvic floor surgery is a matter of debate owing to the occurrence of mesh-related complications. Based on the current literature, mesh-related complications seem to be lower in transabdominal mesh surgery than in transvaginal mesh surgery. In this study, a low mesh exposure rate was observed in robot-assisted abdominal pelvic floor surgery for POP.

Robot-Assisted Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A 5-Year Experience at a Tertiary Referral Center.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is being increasingly performed internationally to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. Robotic assistance appears advantageous for this procedure, but literature regarding robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is limited. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in the largest consecutive series of patients to date. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: All of the patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse syndromes between 2010 and 2015 were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative (mesh and nonmesh) morbidity and functional outcome were analyzed. The actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 258 patients underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (mean ± SD follow-up = 23.5 ± 21.8 mo; range, 0.2 - 65.1 mo). There were no conversions and only 5 intraoperative complications (1.9%). Mortality (0.4%) and major (1.9%) and minor (<30 d) early morbidity (7.0%) were acceptably low. Only 1 (1.3%) mesh-related complication (asymptomatic vaginal mesh erosion) was observed. A significant improvement in obstructed defecation (78.6%) and fecal incontinence (63.7%) were achieved for patients (both p < 0.0005). At final follow-up, a new onset of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation was induced or worsened in 3.9% and 0.4%. The actuarial 5-year external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse recurrence rates were 12.9% and 10.4%. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study including patients with minimal follow-up. No validated scores were used to assess function. The study was monocentric, and there was no control group. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is a safe and effective technique to treat rectal prolapse syndromes, providing an acceptable recurrence rate and good symptomatic relief with minimal morbidity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A427.

Robot-Assisted Sacrocolporectopexy for Multicompartment Prolapse of the Pelvic Floor: A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluating Functional and Sexual Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic floor disorders are a major public health issue. For female genital prolapse, sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is a relatively new and promising technique correcting rectal prolapse. There is no literature combining the 2 robotically assisted techniques. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the safety, quality of life, and functional and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for multicompartment prolapse of the pelvic floor. DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. PATIENTS: All sexually active patients undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy at our institution between 2012 and 2014 were included. INTERVENTION: Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy was the study intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative (12 months) questionnaires using the Urinary Distress Inventory, Pescatori Incontinence Scale, Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire were completed. In addition Wexner and Vaizey incontinence scores and the Wexner constipation score were recorded postoperatively. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients underwent robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy (median follow-up, 12.5 months). The simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification improved significantly (p < 0.0005) for all 4 of the anatomic landmarks. Both median fecal (preoperative and postoperative Pescatori 4 vs 3, p = 0.002) and urinary incontinence scores (Urinary Distress Inventory, 27.8 vs 22.2; p < 0.0005) improved significantly at 12 months. Postoperatively median Wexner (3) and Vaizey incontinence (6) and Wexner Constipation (7) scores were noted. A positive effect on sexual function (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire score 31.8 vs 35.9; p = 0.002) and quality of life for each compartment (p < 0.0005) was observed. One patient (2%) developed mesh erosion. No multicompartment recurrences were detected. LIMITATIONS: This was a observational study with a limited follow-up, no control group, and no preoperatively validated constipation score. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy is a safe and effective technique for multicompartment prolapse in terms of functional outcome, quality of life, and sexual function.

Long-term Outcome After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: An Observational Study of 919 Consecutive Patients.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter study aims to assess long-term functional outcome, early and late (mesh-related) complications, and recurrences after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) for rectal prolapse syndromes in a large cohort of consecutive patients. BACKGROUND: Long-term outcome data for prolapse repair are rare. A high incidence of mesh-related problems has been noted after transvaginal approaches using nonresorbable meshes. METHODS: All patients treated with LVR at the Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands and the University Hospital Leuven, Belgium between January 1999 and March 2013 were enrolled in this study. All data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for recurrences and mesh-related problems. RESULTS: 919 consecutive patients (869 women; 50 men) underwent LVR. A 10-year recurrence rate of 8.2% (95% confidence interval, 3.7-12.7) for external rectal prolapse repair was noted. Mesh-related complications were recorded in 18 patients (4.6%), of which mesh erosion to the vagina occurred in 7 patients (1.3%). In 5 of these patients, LVR was combined with a perineotomy. Both rates of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) after LVR compared to the preoperative incidence (11.1% vs 37.5% for incontinence and 15.6% vs 54.0% for constipation). CONCLUSIONS: LVR is safe and effective for the treatment of different rectal prolapse syndromes. Long-term recurrence rates are in line with classic types of mesh rectopexy and occurrence of mesh-related complications is rare.

Dietary restrictions for acute diverticulitis: evidence-based or expert opinion?

PURPOSE: Diet restrictions are usually advised as part of the conservative treatment for the acute phase of a diverticulitis episode. To date, the rationale behind diet restrictions has never been thoroughly studied. This study aims to investigate which factors influence the choice of dietary restriction at presentation. Additionally, the effect of dietary restrictions on hospitalization duration is investigated. METHODS: All patients hospitalized for Hinchey 0, Ia, or Ib diverticulitis between January 2010 and June 2011 were included. Patients were categorized according to the diet imposed by the treating physician at presentation and included nil per os, clear liquid, liquid diet, and solid foods. The relation between Hinchey classification, C-reactive protein, leucocyte count and temperature at presentation and diet choice was examined. Subsequently, the relation between diet restriction and number of days hospitalized was studied. RESULTS: Of the 256 patients included in the study 65 received nil per os, 89 clear liquid, 75 liquid diet, and 27 solid foods at presentation. Solely high temperature appeared to be related to a more restrictive diet choice at presentation. Patients who received liquid diet (HR 1.66 CI 1.19-2.33) or solid foods (HR 2.39 CI 1.52-3.78) were more likely to be discharged compared to patient who received clear liquid diet (HR 1.26 CI 1.52-3.78) or nils per os (reference group). This relation remained statistically significant after correction for disease severity, treatment and complications. CONCLUSION: Physicians appeared to prefer a more restrictive diet with increasing temperature at presentation. Notably, dietary restrictions prolong hospital stay.

Elective resection for ongoing diverticular disease significantly improves quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Although the risks of elective resection for diverticular disease are well studied, studies on subjective improvement are scarce. This study aims to investigate subjective improvement. METHODS: All patients who underwent elective resection for recurring or persisting complaints after an episode of diverticulitis were identified from an in-hospital database. Patients with at least 1 year of follow-up were sent visual analogue scales (VAS) to grade their quality of life (QoL) and the degree of discomfort caused by abdominal pain, abnormal defecation and fatigue before and after resection. RESULTS: One hundred and five patients responded to the questionnaire (response rate 76.6%). The median follow-up was 33 (15-53) months. Elective resection improved general QoL (median VAS improvement 40) and reduced discomfort caused by abdominal pain (median VAS improvement 60) in up to 89.3 and 87.5% of patients, respectively. The effects of elective resection are less profound for discomfort caused by abnormal defecation (77.1%, median VAS improvement 33) and fatigue (75.2%, median VAS improvement 30). CONCLUSION: Elective resection of the sigmoid for persisting or recurring symptoms after an episode of diverticulitis improves general QoL and discomfort caused by abdominal pain, abnormal defecation and fatigue in the vast majority of patients.

Summary: 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence Evidence-Based Surgical Pathway for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to summarize the relevant findings that inform the 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence pathway for surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: We conducted an evidence-based review of the English-language peer-reviewed literature relating to POP surgery published prior to December 2016. Level 1 evidence (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] or systematic reviews of RCTs) was preferred; however, level 2 (poor-quality RCT, prospective cohort studies) or 3 evidence (case series or retrospective studies) has been included if level 1 data were lacking. The committee evaluated the literature and made recommendations based on the Oxford grading system summarized as follows: grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence; grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs; grade C recommendation usually depends on level 3 studies or "majority evidence" from level 2/3 studies or Delphi-processed expert opinion; grade D, "no recommendation possible," would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting. RESULTS: The recommendations from each chapter of the review are presented and serve to inform an evidence-based pathway for the surgical treatment of prolapse. A Web-based interactive application of the pathway is presented. CONCLUSIONS: The 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence pathway on surgery for POP is designed as an adjunct to transparent consultation and consent relating to POP surgery. The final decision regarding surgical intervention can be made only after a shared decision-making process between the patient and the clinician that will evaluate a variety of individual factors that cannot be assessed in the pathway.

Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse.

External and internal rectal prolapse with their affiliated rectocele and enterocele, are associated with debilitating symptoms such as obstructed defecation, pelvic pain and faecal incontinence. Since perineal procedures are associated with a higher recurrence rate, an abdominal approach is commonly preferred. Despite the description of greater than three hundred different procedures, thus far no clear superiority of one surgical technique has been demonstrated. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a relatively new and promising technique to correct rectal prolapse. In contrast to the abdominal procedures of past decades, VMR avoids posterolateral rectal mobilisation and thereby minimizes the risk of postoperative constipation. Because of a perceived acceptable recurrence rate, good functional results and low mesh-related morbidity in the short to medium term, VMR has been popularized in the past decade. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted VMR is now being progressively performed internationally and several articles and guidelines propose the procedure as the treatment of choice for rectal prolapse. In this article, an outline of the current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse is presented.