Learning curves and surgical outcomes for proctored adoption of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: cumulative sum curve analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is an effective and well-recognised treatment for symptoms of obstructive defecation in the context of rectal prolapse and recto-rectal intussusception. However, due to the technical complexity of VMR, a significant learning curve has been previously described. This paper examines the effect of proctored adoption of VMR on learning curves, operative times, and outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective database analysis of two district general hospitals was conducted, with inclusion of all cases performed by two surgeons since first adoption of the procedure in 2007-2015. Operative time, length of stay, and in-hospital complications were evaluated, with learning curves assessed using cumulative sum curves. RESULTS: Three hundred and eleven patients underwent VMR during the study period and were included for analysis. Patients were near-equally distributed between surgeons (surgeon A: n = 151, surgeon B, n = 160) with no significant differences between gender, age, or ASA grade. In-hospital morbidity was 3.2 %, with 0 % mortality. Cumulative sum curve analysis suggested a change point of between 25 and 30 cases based on operative times and length of stay and was similar between both surgeons. No significant change point was seen for morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSION: VMR is an effective and safe treatment for rectal prolapse. Surgeons in this study were proctored during the adoption process by another surgeon experienced in VMR; this may contribute to increased safety and abbreviated learning curve. In the context of proctored adoption, this study estimates a learning curve of 25-30 cases, without detrimental impact on patient outcomes.

A Multicenter Collaboration to Assess the Safety of Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding the potential risk of mesh complications after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the risk of mesh and nonmesh morbidity after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy and to compare the safety of synthetic meshes with biological grafts. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review. SETTINGS: The study used data collated from prospective pelvic floor databases in 5 centers (3 in the United Kingdom, 1 in Australia, and 1 in Italy). PATIENTS: All of the patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy over a 14-year period (1999-2013) at these centers were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mesh morbidity, classified as vaginal erosion, rectal erosion, rectovaginal fistula, or perineal erosion. Secondary outcomes were nonmesh morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 2203 patients underwent surgery; 1764 (80.1%) used synthetic mesh and 439 (19.9%) used biological grafts. There were 2 postoperative deaths (0.1%). Forty-five patients (2.0%) had mesh erosion, including 20 vaginal, 17 rectal, 7 rectovaginal fistula, and 1 perineal. Twenty-three patients (51.1%) required treatment for minor erosion morbidity (local excision of stitch/exposed mesh), and 18 patients (40.0%) were treated for major erosion morbidity (12 laparoscopic mesh removal, 3 mesh removal plus colostomy, and 3 anterior resection). Erosion occurred in 2.4% of synthetic meshes and 0.7% of biological meshes. The median time to erosion was 23 months. Nonmesh complications occurred in 11.1% of patients. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study including patients with minimal follow-up. The study was unable to determine whether patients will develop future erosions, currently have asymptomatic erosions, or have been treated in other institutions for erosions. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is a safe operation. Mesh erosion rates are 2% and occasionally require resectional surgery that might be reduced by the use of biological graft. An international ventral mesh registry is recommended to monitor mesh problems and to assess whether type of mesh has any impact on functional outcomes or the need for revisional surgery for nonerosion problems.

Proficiency gain curve and predictors of outcome for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is a well-recognized treatment for rectal prolapse and high-grade rectal intussusception. However, it is technically complex with the possibility of clinically relevant morbidity. The objectives were to define (i) the efficacy and safety of LVMR, (ii) risk factors for poor clinical outcome, and (iii) the autodidactic proficiency gain curve. METHODS: All primary LVMR cases performed by the senior author between January 1997 and February 2013 were included in the study. In addition to the clinical outcomes, quality-of-life outcomes, including the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score and obstructive defecation syndrome score, were evaluated. Risk factors for operative complications, recurrence, and mesh-related complications were identified by the use of logistic regression models. Proficiency gain curves for functional and clinical outcomes were assessed using cumulative sum curves. RESULTS: A total of 636 LVMRs were performed during the study period. The mean percentage improvement in the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score and obstructive defecation syndrome score were 89.7% (SD 21.8%) and 56.7% (SD 20.6%). The operative complication, recurrent symptoms, and mesh-related complication rates were 9.9%, 9.4%, and 3.1%, respectively. Predictors of operative complication were male sex and previous abdominal operation; the only predictor of mesh-related complications and recurrence was the use of polyester mesh. The learning curve for operative time was 54 cases, but for other clinical and quality-of-life outcomes was between 82 and 105 cases. CONCLUSION: LVMR treats rectal prolapse effectively, providing good symptomatic relief with minimal morbidity. However, the self-taught learning curve for this complex laparoscopic procedure is protracted.

Stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation: a cautionary tale.

PURPOSE: This prospective study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of a novel technique in treating outlet obstruction syndrome using a transanal double-stapling procedure. METHODS: Two hundred thirty patients (187 female) with obstructed defecation underwent stapled transanal rectal resection over a six-year period with follow-up at 2, 6, and 12 months, then yearly; median follow-up was 24 (range, 12-68) months. All failed conservative measures. Patients with slow transit constipation and puborectalis dyssynergia were excluded. RESULTS: Operating time was short (median, 35 (range, 20-95) minutes), with 159 (69%) performed as day cases (outpatient). Major complications were seen in 16 (7%); there were no deaths. Twelve (5%) patients reported severe postoperative pain. Immediate postoperative fecal urgency was reported by 107 (46%) patients, but persisted at six months in only 26 (11%). Three (1%) developed recurrent rectal prolapse. Nearly all incontinent patients (98%) reported an improvement, with a median Wexner score reduction of 5 points (P < 0.0001). Constipation improved in 77% of patients. Seventy-seven percent of patients were "very glad" they had the operation, and 86% "recommended" stapled transanal rectal resection to a friend. CONCLUSION: Stapled transanal rectal resection can be performed on a day-case basis with high levels of patient satisfaction. Incontinence and constipation are improved. However, significant morbidity occurs in 7% of patients, and urgency of defecation persists beyond six months in 11%.

Telephone follow-up following office anorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with minor anorectal conditions are frequently reviewed at an 8-week out-patient appointment (OPA). This study was designed to assess whether telephone follow-up could reduce OPA numbers whilst maintaining patient satisfaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over an 11-month period, 46 patients (23 male) underwent banding of haemorrhoids and 14 were prescribed medical treatment for fissure-in-ano (3 male). All were telephoned at 6 weeks and were offered an 8-week OPA if they had continuing problems. Patients were telephoned at a later date by a member of the hospital's patient panel to assess satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall, 88% were contacted at 6 weeks, 60% at the first attempt; 40% required two or more attempts. Of those who underwent banding, 68% were asymptomatic, 17% requested an OPA for re-banding and 15% requested an OPA for a different problem. Of fissure patients, 25% were cured; the remainder were prescribed either second-line medical treatment (8%), anorectal physiology (42%) or surgery (25%). All avoided an OPA. Of a potential 60 OPAs, 47 were saved by telephone follow-up. None of 7 non-contactable patients accepted a written offer of an OPA. Overall, 89% of patients were contacted by the patient panel; of these patients, 93% reported a high level of satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone follow-up can reduce the number of OPAs following out-patient treatment of minor anorectal conditions whilst maintaining a high level of patient satisfaction. However, it requires considerable consultant time. This process could be developed into either a nurse-led service with booked telephone appointments or a patient-led service to a dedicated hotline.