Search

Abstract Background Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) defines a disturbed defecation process frequently associated with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women that substantially compromises quality of life. Conservative management offers limited relief and a surgical intervention may be required. This is characterized by individual approaches. Aim of the study This retrospective single center study evaluated the surgical and clinical short-term outcome of a novel interdisciplinary laparoscopic resection rectopexy (L-RRP) with mesh- sacrocolpopexy (L-SCP) for women suffering from ODS and POP. Methods The study participants underwent surgery in an interdisciplinary laparoscopic approach. Safety was the primary endpoint, assessed via postoperative morbidity classified by Clavien-Dindo scale. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of bowel function, fecal and urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse status at 12 months follow-up. Additionally, a biological mesh (BM) was offered to women, who asked for an alternative to synthetic mesh material (SM). Results Of the 44 consecutive patients requiring surgery for ODS and POP, 36 patients underwent the interdisciplinary surgical approach; 28 patients with SM and 8 patients with BM. In total 5 complications occurred, four of them were classified as minor. One minor complication was observed in the BM group. One anastomotic leakage occurred in the SM group. The two ODS scores, the bowel dysfunction score, and the incontinence score improved significantly (p = 0.006, p = 0.003, p

Background: Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) defines a disturbed defecation process frequently associated with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women that substantially compromises quality of life. Conservative management offers limited relief and a surgical intervention may be required. This is characterized by individual approaches. Aim of the study: This retrospective single center study evaluated the surgical and clinical short-term outcome of a novel interdisciplinary laparoscopic resection rectopexy (L-RRP) with mesh- sacrocolpopexy (L-SCP) for women suffering from ODS and POP. Methods: The study participants underwent surgery in an interdisciplinary laparoscopic approach. Safety was the primary endpoint, assessed via postoperative morbidity classified by Clavien-Dindo scale. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of bowel function, fecal and urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse status at 12 months follow-up. Additionally, a biological mesh (BM) was offered to women, who asked for an alternative to synthetic mesh material (SM). Results: Of the 44 consecutive patients requiring surgery for ODS and POP, 36 patients underwent the interdisciplinary surgical approach; 28 patients with SM and 8 patients with BM. In total 5 complications occurred, four of them were classified as minor. One minor complication was observed in the BM group. One anastomotic leakage occurred in the SM group. The two ODS scores, the bowel dysfunction score, and the incontinence score improved significantly (p = 0.006, p = 0.003, p < 0.001, and p = 0.0035, respectively). Pelvic floor anatomy was fully restored (POP-Q 0) for 29 (80%) patients after surgery. 17 patients (47%) suffered from urinary incontinence before surgery, which was restored in 13 patients (76.5%). Conclusions: The interdisciplinary approach with L-RRP and L-SCP and the use of a BM in a small subgroup were technically feasible, safe, and effective in this single center setting. The study's retrospective design, the small sample size and the lack of comparators limit the generalizability of the findings requiring future randomized trials. Trial registration: Retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov, trial number NCT05910021, date of registration 06/10/2023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: Rectal prolapse is a benign condition that mainly affects females and the elderly. The most common symptoms are constipation and incontinence. The treatment of choice is surgical, but so far, there has been no gold standard method. The aim of this study is to compare the two most common intrabdominal procedures utilized for treating rectal prolapse: the resection rectopexy and the mesh rectopexy. (2) Methods: In this study, we conducted a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature and compared the two different approaches regarding their complication rate, recurrence rate, and improvement of symptoms rate. (3) Results: No statistically significant difference between the two methods was found regarding the operating time, the length of stay, the overall complication rate, the surgical site infection rate, the cardiopulmonary complication rate, the improvement in constipation and incontinence rates, and the recurrence rate. (4) Conclusions: Our study revealed that mesh rectopexy and resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse have similar short- and long-term outcomes. As a result, the decision for the procedure used should be individualized and based on the surgeon's preference and expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pelvic floor disorders are frequently caused by an organ prolapse involving multiple pelvic floor compartments. In such cases, a multidisciplinary strategy for diagnostic work-up and therapy is required.

Rectal prolapse, or procidentia, is a common pathology for the practicing colorectal surgeon. It is associated with lifestyle limiting symptoms for the patient and frequently co-exists with other types of pelvic prolapse making multidisciplinary management key. It is primarily managed with surgical reconstruction. A number of operative approaches exist, and the optimum procedure is varied dependent upon patient characteristics., Competing Interests: Disclosure The author has nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Both at short- and long-term follow-up we have reported major improvement of the symptom of constipation in patients treated with resection rectopexy for internal rectal intussusception (IRI). The aim was to study whether this improvement also persisted in a cohort of these patients after very long-term follow-up. Observational and mainly prospective study of a cohort of 13 out of 48 patients with IRI who initially had ligament-preserving resection rectopexy with suture by laparoscopic (n = 11) or open (n = 2) technique. Outcome measures were morbidity, scores for constipation and anal incontinence, patients' report and HRQL. Thirteen out of the 48 initial patients (27%) reported data at very long-term follow-up. Months from preoperatively to short-, long- and very long-term follow-up were median 6, 76 and 159, respectively. Corresponding mean (95% CI) constipation scores were 11.5 (8.3–14.7), 4.2 (1.7–6.6) (p <.001), 5.3 (3.6–7.0) (p <.05) and 13.6 (8.2–19.0). Number of constipated patients were (score ≥ 10) were 8, 1, 0, 1 and 9, respectively. Scores for anal incontinence were 6.1 (2.4–11.4), 5.8 (2.0–9.5), 4.9 (0.9–9.0) and 7.9 (4.3–11.5), respectively. HRQL life was reduced for bodily pain, social functioning, mental health and general health perception. Percentage patients reporting symptomatic improvement were 100, 70 and 53, respectively. Patients with IRI have a symptomatic relief for more than 6 years after resection rectopexy. The operation did not inflict permanent patient sequela. Motivated patients must be informed about very long-term deterioration of symptomatic relief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To analyse trends in admission and surgery for rectal prolapse in adults in England between 2001 and 2012 as well as prolapse reoperation rates. Method: Analysis of data derived from a comparative longitudinal population‐based cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Results: During the study period, a total of 25 238 adults, of median age 73 [interquartile range (IQR: 58–83] years, underwent a total of 29 379 operations for rectal prolapse (mean: 2662 per annum). The female to male ratio of this group of patients was 7:1. Median length of hospital stay was 3 (IQR: 1–7) days with an overall in‐hospital mortality rate of 0.9%. Total number of admissions (4950 in 2001/2002 vs 8927 in 2011/2012) and of patients undergoing prolapse surgery (2230 in 2001/2002 vs 2808 in 2011/2012) significantly increased over the study period (P < 0.001 for trends). The overall increase in prolapse surgery (of 33% overall and of 44% for elective procedures) was dwarfed by an increase in popularity of laparoscopic surgery (of 15‐fold). Overall prolapse reoperation rate was 12.7%. The lowest recurrence rate was observed for elective open resection (9.1%) but this had the highest mortality (1.9%). Laparoscopic and perineal fixations were also associated with low reoperation rates (< 11%) and the lowest mortality rates, of 0.3%, when these procedures were elective. These data refute a trend towards subspecialization (by surgeon or hospital) during the study period. Conclusion: Admissions for rectal prolapse increased in England between 2001 and 2012, together with increases in rectal prolapse surgery. Surgical decision making has changed over this period and may be reflected in outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Resection rectopexy is performed to correct the anatomic defect associated with rectal prolapse. The aim of the study was to determine whether the change in the radiological prolapse grade has an influence on patients' symptoms and quality of life.Methods: The study investigated 40 patients who underwent resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse. The following were determined before and after surgery: radiological prolapse grade, anorectal angle and pelvic floor position in defecography, clinical symptoms (Cleveland Clinic Incontinence and Constipation Scores, Kelly-Hohlschneider Score), quality of life.Results: Defecography revealed postoperative improvement in the prolapse grade and pelvic floor position (p < 0.05). The clinical symptoms and quality of life improved in both, the total population (n = 40) and in patients with improved radiological prolapse grade (n = 30): all clinical scores (p < 0.05), SF-36 (vitality, social role, mental health p < 0.05), and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (lifestyle, coping, embarrassment p < 0.05). Patients without improved radiological findings showed no change in their symptoms or quality of life.Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the radiological prolapse grade is improved by resection rectopexy. Correction of the anatomic defect was associated with improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Defecography may therefore be useful in the postoperative assessment of persistent symptoms or reduced quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Internal rectal prolapse ( IRP) is a unique functional disorder that presents with a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms, including constipation and/or faecal incontinence ( FI). The present review aims to analyse the results of trials evaluating the role of abdominal rectopexy in the treatment of IRP with regard to regarding functional and technical outcomes. Method A systematic review of the literature for the role of abdominal rectopexy in patients with IRP was conducted. PubMed/Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for published and unpublished studies from January 2000 to December 2015. Results We reviewed 14 studies including 1301 patients (1180 women) of a median age of 59 years. The weighted mean rates of improvement of obstructed defaecation ( OD) and FI across the studies were 73.9% and 60.2%, respectively. Twelve studies reported clinical recurrence in 84 (6.9%) patients. The weighted mean recurrence rate of IRP among the studies was 5.8% (95% CI: 4.2-7.5). Two hundred and thirty complications were reported with a weighted mean complication rate of 15%. Resection rectopexy had lower recurrence rates than did ventral rectopexy, whereas ventral rectopexy achieved better symptomatic improvement, a shorter operative time and a lower complication rate. Conclusion Abdominal rectopexy for IRP attained satisfactory results with improvement of OD and, to a lesser extent, FI, a low incidence of recurrence and an acceptable morbidity rate. Although ventral rectopexy was associated with higher recurrence rates, lower complication rates and better improvement of bowel symptoms than resection rectopexy, these findings cannot be confirmed owing to the limitations of this review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is an uncommon chronic disorder with a wide range of endoscopic findings, clinical presentations and characteristic histopathological features. There is no clear consensus regarding SRUS management, because of its poorly understood pathogenesis and frequent association with various pelvic floor disorders. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) were used for the treatment of non-healing SRUS. The present paper reports a case of non-healing SRUS due to obstructive defecation syndrome based on combined pelvic floor disorders (rectocele, enterocele, internal rectal prolapse and dolichosigma) successfully managed by a novel combined mini-invasive approach which has never been previously reported in the literature (laparoscopic resection rectopexy and TEM). The new minimally invasive concept seems to be safe and feasible - laparoscopic resection rectopexy results in effective correction of the obstructive defecation syndrome, while TEM allows comfortable access for radical resection of a rectal ulcer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim Rectoanal intussusception (RI) can be treated by laparoscopic rectopexy successfully following different techniques. This study aims to compare laparoscopic resection rectopexy with laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in patients with RI. Patients and methods From February 2012 to February 2014, 28 patients with RI were admitted to the Colorectal Surgery Unit, Mansoura University. The patients were divided into two groups: the ventral mesh rectopexy group and the resection rectopexy group. Postoperative improvement in clinical symptoms, symptoms scores, anorectal manometry, and defecography were evaluated over 12 months. Results Eleven (39.3%) patients were male and 17 (60.7%) were female, with a mean age of 43.42 years. Improvement in obstructed defecation symptoms was observed in 22 (78.5%) patients overall: 85.7% in the resection rectopexy group and 71.4% in the ventral mesh rectopexy group (P = 0.648). The mean Wexner score dropped from 15.57 to 4.8 at 3 months (P = 0.0025). The mean operative time was 2.97 h in the resection rectopexy group versus 2.14 h in the ventral mesh rectopexy group (P = 0.0003). Minor morbidities were detected in five cases and no mortality was reported. Recurrence was diagnosed in six (21.4%) patients at 1 year. Conclusion Laparoscopic resection rectopexy is superior to ventral mesh rectopexy despite longer operative time, longer hospital stay, and higher risk of complications [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Nerve sparing in functional pelvic floor surgery is strongly recommended as intraoperative damage to the autonomic nerves may predispose to persistent or worsened anorectal and urogenital function. The aim of this study was to investigate the intraoperative neural topography above the pelvic floor in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection rectopexy in combination with electrophysiologic neuromapping. Methods: Ten consecutive female patients underwent laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Intraoperative identification of pelvic autonomic nerves was carried out with a novel intraoperative neuromonitoring system based on electric stimulation under simultaneous electromyography of the internal anal sphincter and manometry of the bladder. Neuromonitoring results were compared to patients' preoperative anorectal and urogenital function and their functional results at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Laparoscopy in combination with electrophysiologic neuromapping revealed neurogenic pathways to the lower segment of the rectum during surgical mobilization. In all procedures, intraoperative neuromonitoring finally confirmed functional nerve integrity to the internal anal sphincter and the bladder. Patients with preoperatively diagnosed fecal incontinence were continent at the 3-month follow-up. The Wexner score improved in median from preoperative 4 (range 1-18) to 1 (range 0-3) at follow-up ( p = 0.012). Cleveland Clinical Constipation Score improved in median from 10 (range 5-17) to 3 (range 1-7; p = 0.005). In none of the investigated patients a new onset of urinary dysfunction did occur. No change in sexual function was observed. Conclusions: Laparoscopy in combination with electrophysiologic neuromapping during nerve-sparing resection rectopexy identified and preserved neurogenic pathways heading to the lower segment of the rectum above the level of the pelvic floor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incontinence and constipation can occur in cases of pelvic floor dysfunction. Purely morphological changes without severe clinical symptoms are not an indication for surgery. Abdominal operations can be classified into procedures with dorsal (with or without bowel resection and with or without mesh implantation) and procedures with ventral rectopexy (with mesh). With respect to constipation and incontinence suture rectopexy alone is inferior to all other procedures. Dorsal and ventral mesh rectopexy and resection rectopexy are all comparable with respect to improvement of incontinence. Ventral rectopexy without dorsal mobilization and resection rectopexy are superior to mesh rectopexy with respect to constipation. Due to poor evidential status treatment is carried out from a pragmatic viewpoint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: For treatment of rectal prolapse, abdominal approaches are generally offered to younger patients, whereas perineal, less invasive procedures are considered more beneficial in the elderly. The aim of this study was to analyze whether laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) is suitable for older patients. Patients/Methods: Patients who received LRR for rectal prolapse were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. Perioperative and long-term outcome were compared between patients <75 years old (group A) and ≥75 years old (group B). Results: Of 154 patients, 111 were in group A and 43 in group B. There was one conversion that occurred in group B. Overall mortality rate was 1.3% ( n = 2). Both patients were in group B (group B, 4.7%; p = 0.079). Differences in major and minor complications between the groups were not significant. Rates of improvement for incontinence were 62.7% (group A) and 66.7% (group B; p = 0.716); for constipation, the rates were 78.9% (group A) and 73.3% (group B; p = 0.832). All recurrences occurred in group A ( n = 10; overall, 10.3%; group A, 13%). After exclusion of patients who had previously received perineal prolapse surgery, recurrence rate was 3.3% overall (group A, 4.3%). Conclusions: This study supports the benefits of LRR for rectal prolapse in elderly patients. Age per se is not a contraindication for LRR. Elderly patients encounter complications slightly more frequently (although not statistically significant) than younger patients. Therefore, a very careful patient selection in the elderly is of paramount importance. However, the long-term outcome does not seem to differ between younger and elderly patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: More than 100 surgical approaches to treat rectal prolapse have been described. These can be done through the perineum or transabdominally. Delorme's procedure is the most frequently used perineal, resection rectopexy the most commonly used abdominal procedure. Recurrences seem more common after perineal compared to abdominal techniques, but the latter may carry a higher risk of peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality. Methods/Design: DeloRes is a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded multicenter trial with two parallel groups. Patients with a full-thickness rectal prolapse (third degree prolapse), considered eligible for both operative methods are included. The primary outcome is time to recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse during the 24 months following primary surgery. Secondary endpoints are time to and incidence of recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse during the 5-year follow-up, duration of surgery, morbidity, hospital stay, quality of life, constipation, and fecal incontinence. A meta-analysis was done on the basis of the available data on recurrence rates from 17 publications comprising 1,140 patients. Based on the results of a meta-analysis it is assumed that the recurrence rate after 2 years is 20% for Delorme's procedure and 5% for resection rectopexy. Considering a rate of lost to follow-up without recurrence of 30% a total of 130 patients (2 x 65 patients) was calculated as an adequate sample size to assure a power of 80% for the confirmatory analysis. Discussion: The DeloRes Trial will clarify which procedure results in a smaller recurrence rate but also give information on how morbidity and functional results compare. Trial registration: German Clinical Trial Number DRKS00000482 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A variety of surgical strategies have been suggested and many surgical techniques, both abdominal and perineal, have been introduced for treatment of rectal prolapse. All these techniques and approaches are based on the attempt to restore the normal anatomy and physiologic function. Methods: In 1992, Berman et al. published the first laparoscopically performed rectopexy. Meanwhile, many different minimally invasive procedures have been described. Throughout the past century, more than 100 different surgical techniques have been introduced to treat patients with rectal prolapse. Unfortunately, there is still lack of one generally accepted standard technique for the surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. Results and discussion: Our current data strongly supports laparoscopic resection rectopexy to be a safe, fast, and very effective procedure to improve function in patients with rectal prolapse. More evaluations of long-term outcome are needed that focus on each particular laparoscopic procedure to adequately compare different techniques. The indication to perform a laparoscopic resection rectopexy in patients with a previous perineal procedure and a recurrent prolapse should be stated critically because these patients seem to have a high risk to develop yet another recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many different techniques to treat rectal prolapse have been introduced. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy has been shown to entail benefits regarding both perioperative results and short-term outcome, whereas data for long-term outcome are scarce. Methods: Between 1993 and 2008, all laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse II° or III° were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. We analyzed demographic, perioperative, and follow-up results. We defined two periods (1993-2000 and 2001-2008) for comparison of data. Long-term follow-up was obtained by sending questionnaires to all patients. Evaluation included constipation, incontinence, and recurrence of prolapse. Results: Between January 1993 and November 2008, we performed 152 laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse. Median age was 64.1 years (±14.6). Conversion rate was 0.7% (1), mean operation time was 204 (±65.3) min, and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first ( P < 0.0001). Mortality was 0.7% ( n = 1). Complication rates were 4% ( n = 6; major) and 19.2% ( n = 29; minor), respectively. Mean length of hospital stay was 11.3 (±6.4) days and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first period ( P < 0.0001). Mean time of follow-up was 47.7 (±41.6) months. Improvement or complete elimination of constipation was stated by 81.3% (65), and improvement or elimination of incontinence was stated by 67.3% (72). Overall recurrence rate was 11.1% ( n = 10) with a rate of 5.6% ( n = 5) for a 5-year period. Of those patients with previous perineal surgery for rectal prolapse, 53.8% (7/13) experienced recurrent prolapse after laparoscopic resection rectopexy in contrast to 3.9% (3/77) of patients without previous perineal prolapse surgery ( P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our data support the benefits of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse regarding both perioperative results and long-term functional outcome. Preceding perineal or open abdominal operations have an impact on recurrence after laparoscopic resection rectopexy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We report the results of patients treated from January 2000 to June 2004 for full-thickness rectal prolapse with trans-abdominal surgery in Helsinki.Methods: Sixty-five of 75 patients were treated laparoscopically, with a 6% conversion rate. Ten patients were operated on openly. Half of the patients were scored as American Society for Anesthesiologists III or IV.Results: The operation time was similar in the laparoscopic and the open rectopexy procedures (p = 0.15), whereas laparoscopic resection rectopexy was more time-consuming compared to the open procedure (p = 0.007). Intraoperative bleeding during laparoscopic surgery was minimal in comparison to open surgery (p = 0.006). Patients treated laparoscopically had a shorter median hospital stay than those treated with an open procedure (rectopexy, 3 and 7 days, respectively; resection rectopexy, 4 and 7.5 days, respectively) (p < 0.00001). There was no mortality and minor morbidity. During follow-up, there were two prolapse recurrences. All surgical techniques improved fecal continence considerably. Eighty-four percent of rectopexy patients and 92% of resection rectopexy patients considered the surgical outcome to be excellent or good.Conclusions: Both rectopexy and resection rectopexy cure prolapse with good results and can be performed safely in older and debilitated patients. The laparoscopic approach enables a shortened hospital stay and is well tolerated in elderly patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: The laparoscopic approach is common for several surgical procedures. Although the laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery is described as being beneficial, its use is not yet widespread. This restriction may be due to technical difficulties. The use of telerobotic assistance may simplify complex laparoscopic procedures. We compared the traditional laparoscopic and the telerobotic-assisted approaches to colorectal surgery. Patients and methods: Between August 2002 and January 2004, 61 laparoscopic colorectal operations were performed. In this study we focused on sigmoid resection for benign disease. Twenty-three patients underwent sigmoid resection for diverticulitis using traditional laparoscopy, and 4 using telerobotic-assisted laparoscopy. The DaVinci system was used for telerobotic assistance. Four patients underwent resection rectopexies, 2 with traditional and 2 with telerobotic-assisted laparoscopy. Results: The DaVinci device worked well during all operations. No robot-related complications occurred. The conversion rate was 3 out of 23 with traditional laparoscopy and 1 out of 4 in the telerobotic-assisted group. The incidence of postoperative complications was 5 out of 23 after traditional laparoscopic and 1 out of 4 following telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic resection. Operation time was significantly longer using the telerobotic-assisted approach (236.7±5.8 vs. 172.4±38 min, p<0.05). Conclusion: Colorectal surgery using the DaVinci system is safe and feasible. Compared to traditional laparoscopy, we did not see any relevant practical advantages of the supportive features of the telerobotic assistance that simplified the operation significantly. However, it would be useful to evaluate the telerobotic-assisted approach for other kinds of laparoscopic procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: This study has been undertaken to audit a single-center experience with laparoscopic ally-assisted resection rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. The clinical outcomes and long-term results were evaluated. METHODS: The data were prospectively collected for the duration of the operation, time to passage of flatus postoperatively, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. For follow-up, patients received a questionnaire or were contacted. The data were divided into quartiles over the study period, and the differences in operating time and length of hospital stay were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Between March 1992 and October 2003, a total of 117 patients underwent laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse. The median operating time during the first quartile (representing the early experience) was 180 minutes compared with 110 minutes for the fourth quartile (Kruskal-Wallis test for operating time = 35.523, 3 df, P < 0.0001). Overall morbidity was 9 percent (ten patients), with one death (<1 percent). One patient had a ureteric injury requiring conversion. One minor anastomotic leak occurred, necessitating laparoscopic evacuation of a pelvic abscess. Altogether, 77 patients were available for follow-up. The median follow-up was 62 months. Eighty percent of the patients reported alleviation of their symptoms after the operation. Sixty-nine percent of the constipated patients experienced an improvement in bowel frequency. No patient had new or worsening symptoms of constipation after surgery. Two (2.5 percent) patients had full-thickness rectal prolapse recurrence. Mucosal prolapse recurred in 14 (18 percent) patients. Anastomotic dilation was performed for stricture in five (4 percent) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopically-assisted resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse provides a favorable functional outcome and low recurrence rate. Shorter operating time is achieved with experience. The minimally invasive technique benefits should be considered when offering rectal prolapse patients a transabdominal approach for repair, and emphasis should now be on advanced training in the laparoscopic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Rectoanal intussusception may cause symptoms of obstructed defecation, and functional results of prosthesis rectopexy are usually not satisfactory. The aim of this study was to assess seven! p ammeters of the disorder and to evaluate the outcome of resection rectopexy. METHODS: During a 10-year period, 27 female patients with symptomatic large rectoanal intussusception had resection rectopexy (23 laparoscopy; 4 laparotomy). Conservative treatment, including biofeedback treatment in 22 patients, had failed in all cases. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation included clinical assessment, anorectal manometry, evacuation defecography, and colon transit studies. Follow- up ranged between one and five years. RESULTS: Length of intussusception was 2 to 4.9 cm and was significantly related to pelvic floor descent (P = 0.003) and inversely related to resting anal pressures (P < 0.00 1). Eleven patients had undergone a previous hysterectomy, 9 had enterocele- sigmoidocele, 7 had incontinence of varying severity, and 8 had a solitary rectal ulcer. Colon transit was abnormal in all but five cases. Immediate functional results were bad in two-thirds of the cases; tenesmus, urge to defecate, and frequent stools were the main complaints. By the time these symptoms had subsided, and one year after surgery, all but two patients were satisfied with the outcome. Intussusception was reduced in all cases, anal sphincter tone recovered (P = 0.002), perineal descent decreased (P < 0.001), and colonic transit was accelerated (P < 0.001). Patients available at five-year follow-up had no or only minor defecatory problems. CONCLUSION: Resection rectopexy improves symptoms of obstructed defecation attributed to large rectoanal intussusception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives of this study were to describe the technique of laparoscopic-assisted resection rectopexy and audit the clinical outcomes, including review of functional results.Data were prospectively collected for duration of operation, time to passage of flatus and feces postoperatively, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. Follow-up was performed by an independent assessor using a standardized questionnaire. Patients were also assessed by clinical review or telephone interview.During a four-year period, 34 patients underwent laparoscopic repair for rectal prolapse, of which 30 patients underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection rectopexy. Median duration of the operations was 185 minutes, median time for passage of flatus was two days postoperatively, and median length of hospital stay was five days. Morbidity was 13 percent and mortality rate was 3 percent. Comparison between the first ten patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection rectopexy and the last ten revealed a significant reduction in both median duration of operating time (224 vs. 163 minutes; P<0.005) and length of stay (6 vs. 4 days; P<0.015). Follow-up study conducted at a median time of 18 months revealed that most patients (92 percent) felt that the operation had improved their symptoms, that incontinence was improved in 14 of 20 patients with impaired continence (70 percent), and that constipation was improved in 64 percent. Symptoms of incomplete emptying and the need to strain at stool were both improved in 62 and 59 percent of patients, respectively. No full-thickness recurrences have occurred, but two patients have had mucosal prolapse detected (7 percent) and treated.Laparoscopic-assisted resection rectopexy is feasible and safe, with acceptable recurrence rates and functional results compared with the open procedure in the surgical literature. There is rapid return of intestinal function associated with an early discharge from hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]