Comparative study of two surgical methods used for rectocele repair

ABSTRACT

The present study was carried out to evaluate traditional repair of rectocele [posteriorcolpoperineorrhaphy] versus prolene mesh repair of rectocele.The study was carried out on 40 patients divided into two equal group; [I] and [II]. This study wasconducted in Alexandria University Shatby Maternity hospital from May 2005 to April 2006 with an averagepostoperative follow up period of 6 months.It was found that mesh repair of rectocele is superior over the traditional posteriorcolpoperineorrhaphy. This new technique takes less operative time and complications, less post-operativecomplications and a better improvement of patient symptoms.mesh repair of rectocele is a safe technique with a reasonable success and accepted rate ofcomplications. However, more researches are needed to prove the success of this technique over a longerperiod of follow up. It is probable that no single technique can correct all rectoceles because of their diverseanatomic and functional components. Prolene mesh repair of rectocele has a favorable rate of symptomresolution with a low rate ofdenovo symptoms. The technique appears useful for properly informed patientswhose goals are reduced protrusion, improved defecation and avoidance of dyspareunia