Impact of rectopexy on sexual function: a cohort analysis.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) is an established surgical technique for the treatment of both rectal prolapse and symptomatic rectoceles. It is, however, not known whether LVR influences sexual function (SF). The aim of this study was, therefore, to determine the impact of this procedure on the SF of patients. METHODS: All female patients after LVR procedure in a single institution were identified and were sent a questionnaire concerning SF. This addressed sexual activity, satisfaction, preoperative SF, and the impact of surgery on SF. Furthermore, the PISQ-12 validated sexual functioning questionnaire was sent to all female patients. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were sent a questionnaire. These patients underwent LVR for rectal prolapse, symptomatic rectocele, or enterocele between 2004 and 2011. Mean age was 62 years (range 22-89). Mean follow-up was 30 months (range 5-83). Response rate was 64 % (139 patients). The number of sexual active patients dropped from 71 to 54 % after surgery. The number of patients being satisfied with their SF remained relatively equal; 91 % of patients before and 85 % of patients after surgery. Forty-three percent of patients stated that the LVR procedure did not influence their sexual function, in 16 % of patients, the procedure positively influenced their SF, and in 13 % of respondents, SF decreased after surgery. The mean PISQ-12 score postoperatively was 34 out of 48. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of LVR on SF of patients seems limited in this cross-sectional study in a large cohort of patients.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and symptomatic rectocele: an analysis of 245 consecutive patients.

AIM: This retrospective study aimed to determine functional results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for rectal prolapse (RP) and symptomatic rectoceles in a large cohort of patients. METHOD: All patients treated between 2004 and 2011 were identified. Relevant patient characteristics were gathered. A questionnaire concerning disease-related symptoms as well as the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS) and Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) was sent to all patients. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients underwent operation. Twelve patients (5%) died during follow-up and were excluded. The remaining patients (224 women, nine men) were sent a questionnaire. Indications for LVR were external RP (n = 36), internal RP or symptomatic rectocele (n = 157) or a combination of symptomatic rectocele and enterocele (n = 40). Mean age and follow-up were 62 years (range 22-89) and 30 months (range 5-83), respectively. Response rate was 64% (150 patients). The complication rate was 4.6% (11 complications). A significant reduction in symptoms of constipation or obstructed defaecation syndrome was reported (53% of patients before vs 19% after surgery, P < 0.001). Mean CCCS during follow-up was 8.1 points (range 0-23, SD ± 4.3). Incontinence was reported in 138 (59%) of the patients before surgery and in 32 (14%) of the patients after surgery, indicating a significant reduction (P < 0.001). Mean CCIS was 6.7 (range 0-19, SD ± 5.2) after surgery. CONCLUSION: A significant reduction of incontinence and constipation or obstructed defaecation syndrome after LVR was observed in this large retrospective study. LVR therefore appears a suitable treatment for RP and rectocele with and without associated enterocele.