ABSTRACT
Background: Rectal prolapse is more common in elderly women worldwide, but in India, it predominantly occurs in young- and middle-aged males. While ventral mesh rectopexy is proposed as the preferred procedure in females, the debate on the best procedure in men is still wide open. Methods: A retrospective review of all adult male patients operated for external rectal prolapse (ERP) between January 2005 and December 2019 was performed. Patients either underwent modified laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (LPMR) or laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR). The outcome was analysed in terms of recurrence, post-operative constipation, sexual dysfunction and other complications. Results: A total of 118 male patients were included (LPMR: 106, LRR: 12). The mean age was 46.2 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.8, range: 21-88). The mean operating time was 108 min (SD: 24). The mean length of hospital stay was 4.8 days (SD: 1.4, range: 3-11 days). There was no anastomotic leak in the LRR group. Other complications included wound infection (n = 2), mesh infection with sigmoid colon perforation (n = 1), constipation (n = 4), sexual dysfunction (n = 2), urinary urgency (n = 3) and retention of urine (n = 4). There was no mortality in both the groups. During a mean follow-up of 5.2 years, recurrent ERP was noted in one patient and partial mucosal prolapse was seen in three patients. Conclusion: LPMR/LRR is a safe and effective treatment for ERP in men with very low recurrence rates. Randomised trials comparing modified LPMR with LVMR are needed to establish the better procedure in males.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic rectal surgery has moved from being experimental to getting established as a mainstream procedure. We aimed at analysing how rectal cancer surgery has evolved at our institute. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1000 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal adenocarcinoma over a period of 15 years (January 2005 to December 2019) was performed. Technical modifications were made with splenic flexure mobilisation, intersphincteric dissection and anastomotic technique. The data collected included type of surgery, duration of surgery, conversion to open, anastomotic leak, defunctioning stoma and duration of hospital stay. The first 500 and the next 500 cases were compared. RESULTS: The study patients were predominantly males comprising 68% (n = 680). The mean age of the patients was 58.3 years (range: 28-92 years). Majority of the procedures performed were high anterior resection (n = 402) and low anterior resection (LAR) (n = 341) followed by ultra-LAR (ULAR) (n = 208) and ULAR + colo-anal anastomosis (n = 49). A total of 42 patients who were planned for laparoscopic surgery needed conversion to open procedure. Forty-one patients (4.1%) had an anastomotic leak. The mean duration of stay was 5.3 + 2.8 days. The rate of conversion to open procedure had reduced from 5.4% to 3.0%. The rate of defunctioning stoma had reduced by >50% in the recent group. The anastomotic leak rate had reduced from 5.0% to 3.2%. The average duration of stay had reduced from 5.8 days to 4.9 days. CONCLUSION: This is one of the largest single-centre experiences of laparoscopic anterior resection. We have shown the progressive benefits of an evolving approach to laparoscopic anterior resection.
