Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the oldest old is safe: the race is run.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is considered to be the gold standard for managing rectal prolapse. Nevertheless, concerns have been expressed about the use of this procedure in elderly patients. The aim of the current study was to examine the perioperative safety of primary LVMR operations in the oldest old in comparison to younger individuals and to assess our hospital policy of offering LVMR to all patients, regardless of age and morbidity. METHODS: A retrospective study analysed demographic information, operation notes, meshes utilised, operation times, lengths of hospital stay (LOS) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores of patients who underwent LVMR at Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital between 2012 and 2023. RESULTS: Eighty-seven female patients underwent LVMR. Nineteen patients were 80 years of age or older (OLD group); the remaining 65 patients were under the age of 80 (YOUNG group). The difference between the groups in terms of age was statistically significant. ASA scores were not significantly different. No mortality was observed. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of LOS, operation time or morbidity. Moreover, the postoperative morbidity profile was excellent in both groups. CONCLUSION: LVMR seems to be a safe operation for the "oldest old" patients with comorbidity, despite a single-centre, retrospective trial with limited follow-up. The present study suggests abandoning the dogma that "frail patients with rectal prolapse are not suitable for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy."

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.

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: 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: 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: LVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.

Mental health disorders as a risk factor in young patients with rectal prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse (RP) typically presents in the elderly, though it can present in younger patients lacking traditional risk factors. The current study compares medical and mental health history, presentation, and outcomes for young and older patients with RP. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective review of patients who underwent abdominal repair of RP between 2005 and 2019. Individuals were dichotomized into two groups based on age greater or less than 40 years. RESULTS: Of 156 patients, 25 were < 40. Younger patients had higher rates of diagnosed mental health disorders (80% vs 41%, p < 0.001), more likely to take SSRIs (p = .02), SNRIs (p = .021), anxiolytics (p = 0.033), and antipsychotics (p < 0.001). Younger patients had lower preoperative incontinence but higher constipation. Both groups had low rates of recurrence (9.1% vs 11.6%, p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Young patients with RP present with higher concomitant mental health diagnoses and represent unique risk factors characterized by chronic straining compared to pelvic floor laxity.

An examination of rectal prolapse surgery patients' quality of life and symptoms using patient-reported outcome instruments: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We measured changes in self-reported health and symptoms attributable to rectal prolapse surgery using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. METHODS: A prospectively recruited cohort of patients scheduled for rectal prolapse repair in Vancouver, Canada between 2013 and 2021 were surveyed before and 6-months after surgery using seven PROs: the EuroQol Five-Dimension Instrument (EQ-5D-5L), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), Pain Intensity, Interference with Enjoyment of Life and General Activity (PEG), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), and the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (FIQL). RESULTS: We included 46 participants who reported improvements in health status (EQ-5D-5L; p â€‹< â€‹0.01), pain interference (PEG; p â€‹< â€‹0.01), depressive symptoms (PHQ-9; p â€‹= â€‹0.01), fecal incontinence severity (FISI; p â€‹< â€‹0.01), gastrointestinal quality of life (GIQLI; p â€‹< â€‹0.01), and fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQL) related to lifestyle (p â€‹= â€‹0.02), coping and behaviour (p â€‹= â€‹0.02) and depression and self-perception (p â€‹= â€‹0.01). CONCLUSION: Surgical repair of rectal prolapse improved patients' quality of life with meaningful improvements in fecal incontinence severity and pain, and symptom interference with daily activities.

Ventral mesh rectopexy for recurrent rectal prolapse after Altemeier perineal proctosigmoidectomy: feasibility and outcomes.

PURPOSE: Recurrence of rectal prolapse following the Altemeier procedure is reported with rates up to 40%. The optimal surgical management of recurrences has limited data available. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a favored procedure for primary rectal prolapse, but its role in managing recurrences after Altemeier is unclear. VMR for recurrent prolapse involves implanting the mesh on the colon, which has a thinner wall, more active peristalsis, no mesorectum, less peritoneum available for covering the mesh, and potential diverticula. These factors can affect mesh-related complications such as erosion, migration, or infection. This study assessed the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of VMR for recurrent rectal prolapse after the Altemeier procedure. METHODS: We queried our prospectively maintained database between 01/01/2008 and 06/30/2022 for patients who had experienced a recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse following Altemeier's perineal proctosigmoidectomy and subsequently underwent ventral mesh rectopexy. RESULTS: Ten women with a median age of 67 years (range 61) and a median BMI of 27.8 kg/m2 (range 9) were included. Five (50%) had only one Altemeier, and five (50%) had multiple rectal prolapse surgeries, including Altemeier before VMR. No mesh-related complications occurred during a 65-month (range 165) median follow-up period. Three patients (30%) experienced minor postoperative complications unrelated to the mesh. Long-term complications were chronic abdominal pain and incisional hernia in one patient, respectively. One out of five (20%) patients with only one previous prolapse repair had a recurrence, while all patients (100%) with multiple prior repairs recurred. CONCLUSION: Mesh implantation on the colon is possible without adverse reactions. However, high recurrence rates in patients with multiple previous surgeries raise doubts about using VMR for secondary or tertiary recurrences.

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The primary objective is to identify determinants of dissatisfaction after surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse ± rectal prolapse, using laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or sacrocolpopexy (LSC) ± ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The secondary objective is the evaluation of complications and objective/subjective recurrence rates. METHODS: The study performed was a single-surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data. LSH/LSC ± VMR were performed between July 2005 and September 2022. Primary investigated outcome was patients' satisfaction, assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score and the bother visual analog scale (VAS) obtained postoperatively (at a 1-month interval and on a 6-month/yearly basis thereafter). We looked for a correlation between the level of satisfaction (as reflected by the VAS) and potential determinants. RESULTS: There were 355 patients with a mean age of 62 ±12 years. Nearly all the patients (94.3%) had a stage 3 or 4 prolapse according to the POP-Q classification. The mean postoperative bother VAS was 1.8, with only 12.7% of patients reporting a bother VAS score ≥ 3/10, indicating a dissatisfaction. PGI-I showed improvement in the vast majority of patients (96.4% scoring 1 to 3). Patients with anal incontinence preoperatively scored higher on the bother VAS postoperatively (r=0.175, p < 0.05). The use of a posterior arm mesh (for posterior vaginal prolapse) correlated with better satisfaction overall (r= -0.178, p = 0.001), whereas the performance of VMR was associated with a bothering sensation (r = 0.232, p < 0.001). A regression analysis confirmed the impact of posterior mesh and VMR on satisfaction levels, with odds of dissatisfaction being 2.18 higher when VMR was combined with LSH/LSC. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior mesh use improves patient satisfaction when the posterior compartment is affected. In patients with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse, combining VMR with anterior LSC/LSH appears to negatively impact patients' satisfaction. Preoperative anal incontinence was demonstrated to be a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction.

Ventral mesh rectopexy. Does a descending perineum impact functional results and quality of life?

PURPOSE: The impact of perineal descent (PD) on functional outcome and quality of life after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of PD on the functional outcome and quality of life (QOL) after VMR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on fifty-five patients who underwent robotic VMR between 2018 and 2021. Pre and postoperative data along with radiological studies were gathered from a prospectively maintained database. The Cleveland Clinic Constipation score (CCCS), the Rome IV criteria and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), were used to measure functional results and QOL. RESULTS: All 55 patients (mean age 57.8 years) were female. Most patients had radiological findings of severe PD (n = 31) as opposed to mild/moderate PD (n = 24). CCCS significantly improved at 3 months and 1 year post-VMR (mean difference = -4.4 and -5.4 respectively, p < 0.001) with no significant difference between the two groups. The percentage of functional constipation Rome IV criteria only showed an improved outcome at 3 months for severe PD and at 1 year for mild/moderate PD (difference = -58.1% and -54.2% respectively, p < 0.05). Only the SF-36 subscale bodily pain significantly improved in the mild/moderate PD group (mean difference = 16.7, p = 0.002) 3 months post-VMR which subsided after one year (mean difference = 5.5, p = 0.068). CONCLUSION: Severe PD may impact the functional outcome of constipation without an evident effect on QOL after VMR. The results, however, remain inconclusive and further research is warranted.

Management of Complete Persistent Rectal Prolapse in Children: A Comparative Study Between Mesh Repair Versus Suturing Rectopexy.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse is a relatively common, usually self-limiting illness in children. Peak incidence is between 1 and 3 years. The primary treatment of rectal prolapse is non-operative. Surgical intervention is needed in long-standing intractable cases of rectal prolapse, rectal pain/bleeding/ulceration and prolapse that needs frequent manual or difficult reduction. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus laparoscopic suture rectopexy in the management of persistent rectal prolapse in children not responding to conservative management and/or recurrent after sclerotherapy or anal encirclement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four cases were randomised into two groups at the ratio of 1:1, Group 1 patients were managed by laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, whereas Group 2 cases were managed by laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Patients with primary surgical conditions such as anorectal malformations, Hirschsprung's disease, rectal polyps or masses and Ectopia Vesicae were excluded from the study. Inclusion criteria were complete rectal prolapse cases with failed medical treatment for at least 6 months and/or recurrent after injection sclerotherapy or anal encirclement. RESULTS: In the mesh rectopexy group, one case had recurrence in the form of partial prolapse 3 weeks postoperatively which improved 2 months postoperatively with conservative management, one case had bleeding per rectum 2 months postoperatively, stool analysis was done revealing parasitic infestation which was treated medically. In the suture rectopexy group, one case had one attack of bleeding per rectum on the 2nd day postoperatively which resolved spontaneously and one case was readmitted on the 5th day postoperatively for non-bilious vomiting which improved by medical treatment. No recurrent cases of complete rectal prolapse were reported in both groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic rectopexy can be an effective modality for the treatment of refractory complete rectal prolapse in children. It is effective, safe and easy. Although the current study has shown that laparoscopic suture rectopexy and mesh rectopexy have nearly the same results, a larger number of patients are needed to compare more deeply between the two groups.

Long time consequences after STARR procedure: Report of 15 years experience and medico-legal perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Stapled transanal rectal resection is the most surgical procedure used for obstructed defecation syndrome, rectal prolapse, rectocele and rectal intussusception worldwide. The aim of this study is to report our experience and long time consequences and to offer a new medico-legal perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospective review medical charts of patients treated between 2006 and 2021 â€‹b â€‹y the same team directed by the same senior surgeon. We consider major complications and long time sequelaeses as main object for the discussion. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were created. IRB approved the study. After revision a medico-legal perspective was done based on major complications. RESULTS: During the study period 1726 patients, ages between 18 and 71 years old, were treated with 1280 STARR procedures and 446 "Longo" [was stopped on 2012]; all procedures were performed by the senior surgeon and visited by the team at the same control visit at 7days, 30 days and 12 and 18 months after surgery. All patients had 100 â€‹% compliance at 30 days, while 85 â€‹% had long time visit (more than 18 months). During the study period 6 â€‹% (104 subjects) of patients had minor complications while 1 patient (42 â€‹yrs female) reported total fecal incontinence after 18 months (0,05 â€‹%). This patient had mental disorder treated with drugs unknown before surgery and long time mental disorder after surgery. We focused on this last case to discuss long time complication DISCUSSION: This survey reports some interesting clinical data; respect to standard complications minor complications such as pain, bleeding and anal discomfort represent less than 10 â€‹% of procedures that is a good results in this perineal surgery. For those working with rectal mucosal prolapse, obstructed defecation syndrome, rectocele or rectal intussusception is essential to distinguish these diagnosis to have a good counselling with patient before surgery (at least 1 month before). It is essential to check these patients with a close follow-up especially after surgery, to avoid any other mental discomfort related to fecal incontinence; long time fecal incontinence, without anatomical disorders as our case, could be associated and related to drugs consumption or mental disorder, or perineal insensitivity due to surgical procedure. In conclusion it is essential to have good clinical practice to suggest STARR procedure, having idea about different diseases, different surgical approaches and different long time complications.

Combined Robotic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy for Multicompartmental Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Multispecialty management should be the preferred approach for the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction because there is often multicompartmental prolapse. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of combined robotic ventral mesh rectopexy and either uterine or vaginal fixation for the treatment of multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse at our institution. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTINGS: Tertiary referral academic center. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent a robotic approach and combined procedure and whose cases were discussed at a biweekly pelvic floor multidisciplinary team meeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative time, intraoperative blood loss and complications, postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification score, length of stay, 30-day morbidity, and readmission. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2021, there were 321 operations for patients with multicompartmental prolapse. The mean age was 63.4 years. The predominant pelvic floor dysfunction was rectal prolapse in 170 cases (60%). Pelvic organ prolapse quantification scores were II in 146 patients (53%), III in 121 patients (44%), and IV in 9 patients (3%); 315 of 323 cases included robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (98%). Sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy was performed in 281 patients (89%). Other procedures included 175 hysterectomies (54%), 104 oophorectomies (32%), 151 sling procedures (47%), 149 posterior repairs (46%), and 138 cystocele repairs (43%). The operative time for ventral mesh rectopexy was 211 minutes and for combined pelvic floor reconstruction was 266 minutes. Average length of stay was 1.6 days. Eight patients were readmitted within 30 days: 1 with a severe headache and 7 with postoperative complications (2.5%), such as pelvic collection and perirectal collection, both requiring radiologic drainage. Four complications required reoperation: epidural abscess, small-bowel obstruction, missed enterotomy requiring resection, and urinary retention requiring sling revision. There were no mortalities. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: A combined robotic approach for multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse is a safe and viable procedure with a relatively low rate of morbidity and no mortality. This is the highest volume series of combined robotic pelvic floor reconstruction in the literature and demonstrates a low complication rate and short length of stay. See Video Abstract . RECTOPEXIA Y SACROCOLPOPEXIA ROBTICA VENTRAL COMBINADAS CON MALLA PARA EL PROLAPSO DE RGANOS PLVICOS MULTICOMPARTIMENTALES: ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento multiespecializado debe ser el enfoque preferido para el tratamiento de la disfunción del suelo pélvico, ya que a menudo hay prolapso multicompartimental.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la seguridad de la rectopexia robótica combinada con malla ventral y fijación uterina o vaginal para el tratamiento del prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos en nuestra institución.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Centro académico de referencia terciarioPACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a un enfoque robótico y un procedimiento combinado y se discutieron en una reunión quincenal del equipo multidisciplinario sobre el piso pélvico.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tiempo operatorio, pérdida de sangre intraoperatoria y complicaciones. Puntuación de cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos posoperatorio, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, morbilidad a 30 días y reingreso.RESULTADOS:De 2018 a 2021, se realizaron 321 operaciones de pacientes con prolapso multicompartimental. La edad media fue 63.4 años. La disfunción del suelo pélvico predominante fue el prolapso rectal en 170 casos (60%). Las puntuaciones de cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos fueron II en 146 pacientes (53%), III en 121 (44%) y IV en 9 (3%); 315 de los 323 casos incluyeron rectopexia robótica de malla ventral (98%). Se realizó sacrocolpopexia o sacrohisteropexia en 281 pacientes (89%). Otros procedimientos incluyeron 175 histerectomías (54%), 104 ooforectomías (32%), 151 procedimientos de cabestrillo (47%), 149 reparaciones posteriores (46%) y 138 reparaciones de cistocele (43%). El tiempo operatorio para la rectopexia con malla ventral fue de 211 minutos y la reconstrucción combinada del piso pélvico de 266 minutos. La estancia media fue de 1.6 días. Ocho pacientes reingresaron dentro de los 30 días, 1 con dolor de cabeza intenso y 7 pacientes con complicaciones posoperatorias (2.5%): colección pélvica y colección perirrectal, ambas requirieron drenaje radiológico. Cuatro complicaciones requirieron reoperación: absceso epidural, obstrucción del intestino delgado, enterotomía omitida que requirió resección y retención urinaria que requirió revisión del cabestrillo. No hubo mortalidades.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo unicéntrico.CONCLUSIONES:Un enfoque robótico combinado para el prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos es un procedimiento seguro y viable con una tasa relativamente baja de morbilidad y ninguna mortalidad. Esta es la serie de mayor volumen de reconstrucción robótica combinada del suelo pélvico en la literatura y demuestra una baja tasa de complicaciones y una estancia hospitalaria corta. (Traducción-Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez )See Editorial on page 195.

Delorme's vs. Altemeier's in the management of rectal procidentia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse is a distressing condition for patients and no consensus exists on optimal surgical management. We compared outcomes of two common perineal operations (Delorme's and Altemeier's) used in the treatment of rectal prolapse. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. Peri- and post-operative outcomes following Delorme's and Altemeier's procedures were extracted. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate, anastomotic dehiscence rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were total operative time, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay and coloanal anastomotic stricture formation. Revman 5.3 was used to perform all statistical analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies with 605 patients were selected; 286 underwent Altemeier's procedure (standalone), 39 had Altemeier's with plasty (perineoplasty or levatoroplasty), and 280 had Delorme's. Recurrence rate [OR: 0.66; 95% CI [0.44-0.99], P = 0.05] was significantly lower and anastomotic dehiscence [RD: 0.05; 95% CI [0.00-0.09], P = 0.03] was significantly higher in the Altemeier's group. However, sub group analysis of Altemeier's with plasty failed to show significant differences in these outcomes compared with the Delorme's procedure. Length of hospital stay was significantly more following an Altemeier's operation compared with Delorme's [MD: 3.05, 95% CI [0.95 - 5.51], P = 0.004]. No significant difference was found in total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, coloanal anastomotic stricture formation and mortality rates between the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS: A direct comparison of two common perineal procedures used in the treatment of rectal prolapse demonstrated that the Altemeier's approach was associated with better outcomes. Future, well-designed high quality RCTs with long-term follow up are needed to corroborate our findings.

Laparoscopic modified mesh rectopexy: medium-term results of a novel approach for external rectal prolapse.

AIM: Rectal prolapse is a common and significantly debilitating condition. Surgical correction is usually required. The two most common abdominal approaches are ventral mesh rectopexy and posterior suture rectopexy. Both may be complicated, respectively, by either mesh-related complications or significant postoperative constipation. We report the outcome of a novel rectopexy operation which combines aspects of both the aforementioned approaches, for the treatment of external rectal prolapse (ERP). METHOD: The technique involves laparoscopic partial posterior-lateral rectal mobilization of the rectum with posterior suture fixation to the sacral promontory and placement of an absorbable mesh in the rectovaginal space. Data were collected on postoperative complications, prolapse recurrence, mesh-related complications and the assessment of quality of life. RESULTS: Eighty patients underwent a modified mesh rectopexy for ERP. Seventy-seven were women. The median age was 67.5 years. Almost a third had undergone a previous rectal prolapse repair. Recurrences were seen in 11 (13.8%). No mesh-related complications were seen. Eleven patients reported postoperative constipation. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic modified mesh rectopexy may be a safe and effective operation for the treatment of ERP.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients.

PURPOSE: Obstructed defecation syndrome represents 50-60% of patients with symptoms of constipation. We aimed to compare the two frequently performed surgical methods, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair, for this condition in terms of functional and surgical outcomes. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 131 female patients who were diagnosed with obstructed defecation syndrome, attributed to rectocele with or without rectal intussusception, enterocele, hysterocele or cystocele, and who underwent either laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy or transperineal mesh repair. Patients were evaluated for surgical outcomes based on the operative time, the length of hospital stay, operative complications, using prospectively designed charts. Functional outcome was assessed by using the Initial Measurement of Patient-Reported Pelvic Floor Complaints Tool. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients diagnosed with complex rectocele underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, and 80 patients diagnosed with simple rectocele underwent transperineal mesh repair. Mean age was found to be 50.35 ± 13.51 years, and mean parity 2.14 ± 1.47. Obstructed defecation symptoms significantly improved in both study groups, as measured by the Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory, Constipation Severity Instrument and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms scores. Minor postoperative complications including wound dehiscence (n = 3) and wound infection (n = 2) occurred in the transperineal mesh repair group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair are efficient and comparable techniques in terms of improvement in constipation symptoms related to obstructed defecation syndrome. A selective distribution of patients with or without multicompartmental prolapse to one of the treatment arms might be the preferred strategy.

[Intussusception and Rectal Prolapse: A Common Cause for Defecation Disorders].

INTRODUCTION: A rectal prolapse is mainly a disease of the elderly population, occurring more frequently among women. The medical practitioner has an important role in the recognition and initiation of therapy for rectal prolapse. Appropriate therapy can have an important impact on symptom reduction and healthcare resources. Surgical therapy includes perineal or transabdominal surgery, with increasing use of minimally invasive techniques such as mesh rectopexy. This operation is indicated and feasible regardless of age. The management of the rectal prolapse in specialized pelvic floor centres with interdisciplinary expertise for diagnosis and therapy is recommended.