PER2/P65-driven glycogen synthase 1 transcription in macrophages modulates gut inflammation and pathogenesis of rectal prolapse.

Rectal prolapse in serious inflammatory bowel disease is caused by abnormal reactions of the intestinal mucosal immune system. The circadian clock has been implicated in immune defense and inflammatory responses, but the mechanisms by which it regulates gut inflammation remain unclear. In this study, we investigate the role of the rhythmic gene Period2 (Per2) in triggering inflammation in the rectum and its contribution to the pathogenesis of rectal prolapse. We report that Per2 deficiency in mice increased susceptibility to intestinal inflammation and resulted in spontaneous rectal prolapse. We further demonstrated that PER2 was essential for the transcription of glycogen synthase 1 by interacting with the NF-κB p65. We show that the inhibition of Per2 reduced the levels of glycogen synthase 1 and glycogen synthesis in macrophages, impairing the capacity of pathogen clearance and disrupting the composition of gut microbes. Taken together, our findings identify a novel role for Per2 in regulating the capacity of pathogen clearance in macrophages and gut inflammation and suggest a potential animal model that more closely resembles human rectal prolapse.

Efficacy of surgical treatments for the management of solitary rectal ulcer syndrome: a network meta-analysis.

AIM: Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is a benign and poorly understood disorder with complex management. Typical symptoms include straining during defaecation, rectal bleeding, tenesmus, mucoid secretion, anal pain and a sense of incomplete evacuation. Diagnosis is based on characteristic clinical symptoms and endoscopic/histological findings. Several treatments have been reported in the literature with variable ulcer healing rates. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different treatments for SRUS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies in English, French and Spanish languages were included. Papers written in other languages were excluded. Other exclusion criteria were reviews, case reports or clinical series enrolling less than five patients, study duplications, no clinical data of interest and no article available. A systematic literature search was conducted from January 2000 to March 2024 using the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. The biases of the studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale or the Jadad scale when appropriate. Types of treatment and their efficacy for the cure of SRUS were collected and critically assessed. The study's primary outcome was to estimate the rate of patients with ulcer healing. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies with 911 patients (men 361, women 550) diagnosed with SRUS were analysed in the final meta-analysis. The pooled effect estimates of treatment efficacy revealed that surgery showed the highest ulcer healing rate (70.5%; 95% CI 0.57-0.83). Surgery was superior in the cure of ulcers with respect to medical therapies and biofeedback (OR 0.09 and OR 0.14). CONCLUSION: Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome is a challenging clinical entity to manage. Proficient results have been reported with the surgical approach, suggesting its positive role in cases refractory to medical and biofeedback therapy. Further studies in homogeneous populations are required to evaluate the efficacy of surgery in this setting. (PROSPERO registration number CRD42022331422).

Pediatric Rectosigmoid Atypical Juvenile Polyps Presenting With Rectal Prolapse and Acute Bleeding: A Case Report and a Comprehensive Literature Review.

Rectosigmoid solitary juvenile polyps are benign lesions, relatively frequent in childhood. The clinical debut of a pediatric polyp with bleeding is relatively frequent, but there are very few reports of rectal prolapse of polyps. We present the case of a 7-year-old female patient with no previous history who presented with rectal prolapse of a polyp with acute bleeding. An urgent endoscopic examination was performed and 2 rectosigmoid polypoid lesions were found and resected. The anatomopathological study showed that these were 2 hamartomatous polyps with mild dysplasia. The patient is asymptomatic and is being followed up. The literature concerning rectal prolapse of polyps in the pediatric population is scarce. In a pediatric patient with a rectal prolapse, this entity should be considered in the differential diagnosis.

Healthcare Resource Utilization Following Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy: Impact of Concomitant Rectopexy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Combined surgical procedures with sacrocolpopexy (SCP) and rectopexy (RP) are more commonly being performed for treatment of multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) within 6 weeks following combined surgery (SCP-RP) versus SCP alone (SCP-only). We hypothesized that concomitant RP does not impact HRU. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent minimally invasive SCP from 2017 to 2022 was conducted at a tertiary referral center. Patients were grouped based on the performance of concomitant RP. HRU was defined as a composite of unscheduled office visits, emergency department visits, and readmissions before the 6-week postoperative visit. HRU was compared in the SCP-RP and SCP-only groups. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with HRU. RESULTS: There were 144 patients in the SCP-RP group and 405 patients in the SCP-only group. Patient characteristics were similar between the two groups, with the following exceptions: the SCP-RP group was older, more likely to have comorbid conditions, and live >60 miles from the hospital. Of the 549 patients, 183 (33.3%) had ≥1 HRU encounter within 6 weeks after surgery. However, there was no difference between the SCP-RP and SCP-only groups in composite HRU (34.0% vs 33.1%, p = 0.84). The most common reasons for HRU were pain, urinary tract infection symptoms, and wound issues. Concomitant mid-urethral sling was associated with a two-fold increased risk of HRU after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: One in 3 patients undergoing minimally invasive SCP had at least one unanticipated encounter within 6 weeks after surgery. Concomitant RP was not associated with increased postoperative HRU.

Rapid Onset of De Novo Rectal Prolapse Following Colpocleisis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this video case series is to demonstrate our experience of the clinical findings and the surgical management of the rapid onset de novo rectal prolapse (RP) following colpocleisis METHODS: This is a case series of three patients who developed de novo RP within 1 month after colpocleisis, which was repaired by laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). The video shows the physical, radiological, and intraoperative findings of these patients. A retrospective review of our surgical cases of RP was also performed to analyze the onset timing of de novo RP after various pelvic organ prolapse (POP) procedures. RESULTS: The pathological condition of all three patients' RP was evacuation enterocele, and LVMR was feasible without postoperative complications or recurrences. In the retrospective case review of 158 RP surgeries in our institution (June 2015 to September 2023), 18 cases (11.4%) occurred following POP surgery. De novo RP following colpocleisis developed significantly earlier than those following other procedures (average: 6.1 vs 66.4 months, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Although de novo RP following colpocleisis is relatively rare, this complication could have a detrimental effect on patients' quality of life. Preoperative informed consent may be advisable before planning colpocleisis.

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.

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.

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."

Analysis of factors that indicated surgery in 400 patients submitted to a complete diagnostic workup for obstructed defecation syndrome and rectal prolapse using a supervised machine learning algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection is extremely important in obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) and rectal prolapse (RP) surgery. This study assessed factors that guided the indications for ODS and RP surgery and their specific role in our decision-making process using a machine learning approach. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a long-term prospective observational study on female patients reporting symptoms of ODS who underwent a complete diagnostic workup from January 2010 to December 2021 at an academic tertiary referral center. Clinical, defecographic, and other functional tests data were assessed. A supervised machine learning algorithm using a classification tree model was performed and tested. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients were included. The factors associated with a significantly higher probability of undergoing surgery were follows: as symptoms, perineal splinting, anal or vaginal self-digitations, sensation of external RP, episodes of fecal incontinence and soiling; as physical examination features, evidence of internal and external RP, rectocele, enterocele, or anterior/middle pelvic organs prolapse; as defecographic findings, intra-anal and external RP, rectocele, incomplete rectocele emptying, enterocele, cystocele, and colpo-hysterocele. Surgery was less indicated in patients with dyssynergia, severe anxiety and depression. All these factors were included in a supervised machine learning algorithm. The model showed high accuracy on the test dataset (79%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms assessment and physical examination proved to be fundamental, but other functional tests should also be considered. By adopting a machine learning model in further ODS and RP centers, indications for surgery could be more easily and reliably identified and shared.

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.

A comparative study between transanal and transabdominal approaches in treatment of complete rectal prolapse.

Formulating clear guidelines for the most reliable treatment methods for complete rectal prolapse appears challenging. The authors designed this study to compare the results according to the approaches for female complete rectal prolapse and to suggest a more effective method. The transanal and abdominal groups showed differences in operating time, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. However, both groups demonstrated improvement in postoperative functional evaluation. PURPOSE: There is a wide variety of surgical methods to treat rectal prolapse; however, to date, no clear agreement exists regarding the most effective surgical method. This study was designed to compare the results according to the surgical approach for complete rectal prolapse in women. METHODS: This study was conducted from March 2016 to February 2021 on female patients with rectal prolapse who underwent surgery. First, all patients were classified into mucosal and complete layer groups to confirm the difference in results between the two groups, and only complete layer prolapse patients were divided into transanal and abdominal approaches to compare parameters and functional outcomes in each group. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients were included, with an average age of 71.7 years and 102 complete prolapses. The complete layer group was found to have more abdominal access, longer operating time, and higher recurrence rates compared to the mucosal layer group. (p<0.001) When targeting only the complete layer patients, there were 65 patients with the transanal and 37 with the abdominal (laparoscopic) approaches. The abdominal approach group had a longer operating time and hospital stay (p<0.001, respectively) and lower recurrence rate than the transanal group (transanal vs. abdominal, 38% vs. 10.8%, p=0.003), while the Wexner constipation and incontinence scores showed improved results in both groups. CONCLUSION: Although operating time and hospitalization period were shorter in the transanal group, laparoscopic abdominal surgery is a procedure that can reduce the recurrent rate for complete rectal prolapse.

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.

Outcomes for men undergoing rectal prolapse surgery - a systematic review.

AIM: Rectal prolapse is considered rare in men but the prevalence can be high in certain populations. It is unclear which surgical approach offers lower recurrence rates and better functional outcomes in men. The aim of this work was to determine the recurrence rates, complications and functional outcomes after prolapse surgery in men. METHOD: The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus databases were systematically searched to identify studies on outcomes following surgical management of full-thickness rectal prolapse in men (over 18 years of age) published between 1951 and September 2022. Outcomes of interest included recurrence rate after surgery, bowel function, urinary function, sexual function and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies involving 1751 men were included. Two papers focused exclusively on men. Twelve studies employed a mixture of abdominal approaches, ten employed perineal approaches and six compared both. The recurrence rate varied across studies, ranging from 0% to 34%. Sexual and urinary function were poorly reported, but the incidence of dysfunction appears low. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of rectal prolapse surgery in men are poorly studied with small sample sizes and variable outcomes reported. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific repair approach based on the recurrence rate and functional outcomes. Further studies are required to identify the optimal surgical approach for rectal prolapse in men.

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion. METHODS: We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis. RESULTS: The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy. CONCLUSION: Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.

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.

Hemi-circumferential mucosal resection and anastomosis procedure for rectal prolapse following anorectoplasty for anorectal malformations.

PURPOSE: Rectal prolapse after radical surgery for anorectal malformations (ARMs) is a common postoperative complication that causes bleeding and stenosis, and sometimes requires surgical treatment. Different surgical techniques have been reported, but most are associated with high recurrence rates and a long postoperative stay. We performed the hemi-circumferential mucosal resection and anastomosis procedure (HCMR) to preserve anal muscle and anal function. Here, we report the success of our minimally invasive surgical approach to correct rectal prolapse in patients with ARMs. METHODS: The subjects of this retrospective review were patients who underwent HCMR for rectal prolapse after radical surgery for ARMs between January, 2014 and August, 2021. HCMR involves rectal mucosal resection without muscle plication. RESULTS: A collective 15 HCMR procedures were performed in 10 patients. The median age at repair was 1.8 years (range, 10 months-18 years). The median operation time and postoperative length of stay were 46 min (range, 17-85 min) and 3 days (range, 1-7 days), respectively. The median postoperative observation period was 3 years 4 months (range, 8 months-7 years 10 months) and no complications or recurrences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: HCMR is a safe and effective surgical treatment for rectal prolapse after radical operation for ARMs, which is minimally invasive and preserves rectal muscle and function.

A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse.

PURPOSE: Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse can be undertaken via an abdominal or a perineal approach. The present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of different abdominal and perineal procedures for rectal prolapse in terms of recurrence, complications, and improvement in fecal incontinence (FI). METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized clinical trials comparing two or more procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROB-2 tool. The main outcomes were recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse, complications, operation time, and improvement in FI. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials with 728 patients were included. The follow-up ranged between 12 and 47 months. Posterior mesh rectopexy had significantly lower odds of recurrence than did the Altemeier procedure (logOR, - 12.75; 95% credible intervals, - 40.91, - 1.75), Delorme procedure (- 13.10; - 41.26, - 2.09), resection rectopexy (- 11.98; - 41.36, - 0.19), sponge rectopexy (- 13.19; - 42.87, - 0.54), and sutured rectopexy (- 13.12; - 42.58, - 1.50), but similar odds to ventral mesh rectopexy (- 12.09; - 41.7, 0.03). Differences among the procedures in complications, operation time, and improvement in FI were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior mesh rectopexy ranked best with the lowest recurrence while perineal procedures ranked worst with the highest recurrence rates.

Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is considered a valid option in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, it involves higher costs than the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to determine if less expensive robotic surgery for rectal prolapse can be safely performed. METHODS: This study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, from 7 November 2020 to 22 November 2021. The cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources in patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with the da Vinci Xi Surgical Systems was analyzed before and after technical modifications, including the reduction of robotic arms and instruments, and the execution of a double minimal peritoneal incision at the pouch of Douglas and sacral promontory (instead of the traditional inverted J incision). RESULTS: Twenty-two robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were performed [21 females, 95.5%, median age 62.0 (54.8-70.0) years]. After an initial experience performing traditional robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in four patients, we adopted technical modifications in other cases. No major complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. In total, mean cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources was €6995.5 ± 1058.0, €5912.7 ± 877.0, €2797.6 ± 545.6, and €2608.3 ± 351.5, respectively. Technical modifications allowed a significant reduction in the overall cost of hospitalization (€6604.5 ± 589.5 versus €8755.0 ± 906.4, p = 0.001), number of robotic instruments (3.1 ± 0.2 versus 4.0 ± 0.8 units, p = 0.026), and operating room time (201 ± 26 versus 253 ± 16 min, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Considering our preliminary results, robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with appropriate technical modifications can be cost-effective and safe.

Outcomes of rectal prolapse surgery in patients with benign joint hypermobility syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse is a debilitating disorder of the pelvic floor, and treatment outcomes are variable. Previous studies have identified underlying benign joint hypermobility syndrome (BJHS) in some patients. We sought to determine the outcomes of these patients after undergoing ventral rectopexy surgery (VMR). METHODS: All consecutive patients who were referred to the pelvic floor unit at our institution between February 2010 and December 2011 were considered for recruitment into the study. Following recruitment, they were assessed using the Beighton criteria to determine the presence or absence of benign joint hypermobility syndrome. Both groups underwent similar surgical interventions and were then followed up. The need for revisional surgery was recorded in both groups. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients [34 normal; M:F, 1:6; median age 61 (range 22-84) years; 18 BJHS; M:F, 0:1; median age 52 (range 25-79) years] were recruited. A total of 42 patients completed the full 1-year follow-up (26 normal, 16 benign joint hypermobility syndrome). Patients with benign joint hypermobility syndrome were significantly younger (median age 52 versus 61 years, p < 0.001) with male to female ratio of 0:1 versus 1:6, respectively. In addition, they were significantly more likely to require revisional surgery than those without the condition (31% versus 8% p < 0.001). In most cases, this was in the form of a posterior stapled transanal resection of the rectum procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BJHS presenting for rectal prolapse surgery were younger and are more likely to require further surgery for rectal prolapse recurrence than those without the condition.

Neorectal prolapse following proctectomy: a novel application of mesh sacral pexy.

Neorectal prolapse following proctectomy for cancer has seldom been reported and treatment has mostly consisted in the resection of the prolapse via a perineal approach. Management of a patient with neorectal J-pouch prolapse using mesh sacral pexy via an abdominal approach is reported. By analogy with native rectal prolapse due to pelvic static disorders, laparoscopic mesh sacral pexy is likely to afford the same advantages of low morbidity and durability when applied to neorectal prolapse following rectal cancer surgery.