Rapid Onset of De Novo Rectal Prolapse Following Colpocleisis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this video case series is to demonstrate our experience of the clinical findings and the surgical management of the rapid onset de novo rectal prolapse (RP) following colpocleisis METHODS: This is a case series of three patients who developed de novo RP within 1 month after colpocleisis, which was repaired by laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). The video shows the physical, radiological, and intraoperative findings of these patients. A retrospective review of our surgical cases of RP was also performed to analyze the onset timing of de novo RP after various pelvic organ prolapse (POP) procedures. RESULTS: The pathological condition of all three patients' RP was evacuation enterocele, and LVMR was feasible without postoperative complications or recurrences. In the retrospective case review of 158 RP surgeries in our institution (June 2015 to September 2023), 18 cases (11.4%) occurred following POP surgery. De novo RP following colpocleisis developed significantly earlier than those following other procedures (average: 6.1 vs 66.4 months, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Although de novo RP following colpocleisis is relatively rare, this complication could have a detrimental effect on patients' quality of life. Preoperative informed consent may be advisable before planning colpocleisis.

Evaluation and Management of Rectal Prolapse.

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.

Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse (EFTRP), the exact differences in postoperative recurrence and functional outcomes between laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and perineal stapler resection (PSR) have not yet been investigated. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study on 330 elderly patients divided into LVMR group (n = 250) and PSR (n = 80) from April 2012 to April 2019. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery by Wexner incontinence scale, Altomare constipation scale, and patient satisfaction questionnaire. The primary outcomes were incidence and risk factors for EFTRP recurrence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative incontinence, constipation, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: LVMR was associated with fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001), lower prolapse recurrence (p < 0.001), lower Wexner incontinence score (p = 0.03), and lower Altomare's score (p = 0.047). Furthermore, LVMR demonstrated a significantly higher surgery-recurrence interval (p < 0.001), incontinence improvement (p = 0.019), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) than PSR. Three and 13 patients developed new symptoms in LVMR and PSR, respectively. The predictors for prolapse recurrence were LVMR (associated with 93% risk reduction of recurrence, OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.03-0.347, p = 0.001), symptom duration (prolonged duration was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, OR 1.131, 95% CI 1.036-1.236, p = 0.006), and length of prolapse (increased length was associated with a high recurrence risk (OR = 1.407, 95% CI = 1.197-1.655, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the oldest old is safe: the race is run.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is considered to be the gold standard for managing rectal prolapse. Nevertheless, concerns have been expressed about the use of this procedure in elderly patients. The aim of the current study was to examine the perioperative safety of primary LVMR operations in the oldest old in comparison to younger individuals and to assess our hospital policy of offering LVMR to all patients, regardless of age and morbidity. METHODS: A retrospective study analysed demographic information, operation notes, meshes utilised, operation times, lengths of hospital stay (LOS) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores of patients who underwent LVMR at Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital between 2012 and 2023. RESULTS: Eighty-seven female patients underwent LVMR. Nineteen patients were 80 years of age or older (OLD group); the remaining 65 patients were under the age of 80 (YOUNG group). The difference between the groups in terms of age was statistically significant. ASA scores were not significantly different. No mortality was observed. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of LOS, operation time or morbidity. Moreover, the postoperative morbidity profile was excellent in both groups. CONCLUSION: LVMR seems to be a safe operation for the "oldest old" patients with comorbidity, despite a single-centre, retrospective trial with limited follow-up. The present study suggests abandoning the dogma that "frail patients with rectal prolapse are not suitable for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy."

Could robotic-assisted surgery reduce mesh-related complications after ventral mesh rectopexy? Experience of a tertiary centre and systematic review of the literature.

AIM: The development of robotic assistance has made dissection and suturing in the deep pelvis much easier. The augmented quality of the images and the articulation of the robotic arms have also enabled a more precise dissection. The aim of this study is to present the data on robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy procedures in a university hospital and examine the literature in terms of mesh erosion. METHOD: The electronic databases Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane were searched. Studies from January 2004 until January 2023 in the English language were included. Studies which included fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were included. Mesh erosion rates following laparoscopic or robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were measured. RESULTS: Overall, the systematic review presents 5911 patients from 43 studies who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with 746 patients treated with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy from six studies and our centre. Mesh erosion was rare in both groups; however, the prevalence was greater in the laparoscopy group (0.90% vs. 0.27%). CONCLUSION: The mesh erosion rates are very low with robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy. For precise results, more studies and experience in robotic surgery are required.

Ventral mesh rectopexy for recurrent rectal prolapse after Altemeier perineal proctosigmoidectomy: feasibility and outcomes.

PURPOSE: Recurrence of rectal prolapse following the Altemeier procedure is reported with rates up to 40%. The optimal surgical management of recurrences has limited data available. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a favored procedure for primary rectal prolapse, but its role in managing recurrences after Altemeier is unclear. VMR for recurrent prolapse involves implanting the mesh on the colon, which has a thinner wall, more active peristalsis, no mesorectum, less peritoneum available for covering the mesh, and potential diverticula. These factors can affect mesh-related complications such as erosion, migration, or infection. This study assessed the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of VMR for recurrent rectal prolapse after the Altemeier procedure. METHODS: We queried our prospectively maintained database between 01/01/2008 and 06/30/2022 for patients who had experienced a recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse following Altemeier's perineal proctosigmoidectomy and subsequently underwent ventral mesh rectopexy. RESULTS: Ten women with a median age of 67 years (range 61) and a median BMI of 27.8 kg/m2 (range 9) were included. Five (50%) had only one Altemeier, and five (50%) had multiple rectal prolapse surgeries, including Altemeier before VMR. No mesh-related complications occurred during a 65-month (range 165) median follow-up period. Three patients (30%) experienced minor postoperative complications unrelated to the mesh. Long-term complications were chronic abdominal pain and incisional hernia in one patient, respectively. One out of five (20%) patients with only one previous prolapse repair had a recurrence, while all patients (100%) with multiple prior repairs recurred. CONCLUSION: Mesh implantation on the colon is possible without adverse reactions. However, high recurrence rates in patients with multiple previous surgeries raise doubts about using VMR for secondary or tertiary recurrences.

Ventral mesh rectopexy. Does a descending perineum impact functional results and quality of life?

PURPOSE: The impact of perineal descent (PD) on functional outcome and quality of life after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of PD on the functional outcome and quality of life (QOL) after VMR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on fifty-five patients who underwent robotic VMR between 2018 and 2021. Pre and postoperative data along with radiological studies were gathered from a prospectively maintained database. The Cleveland Clinic Constipation score (CCCS), the Rome IV criteria and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), were used to measure functional results and QOL. RESULTS: All 55 patients (mean age 57.8 years) were female. Most patients had radiological findings of severe PD (n = 31) as opposed to mild/moderate PD (n = 24). CCCS significantly improved at 3 months and 1 year post-VMR (mean difference = -4.4 and -5.4 respectively, p < 0.001) with no significant difference between the two groups. The percentage of functional constipation Rome IV criteria only showed an improved outcome at 3 months for severe PD and at 1 year for mild/moderate PD (difference = -58.1% and -54.2% respectively, p < 0.05). Only the SF-36 subscale bodily pain significantly improved in the mild/moderate PD group (mean difference = 16.7, p = 0.002) 3 months post-VMR which subsided after one year (mean difference = 5.5, p = 0.068). CONCLUSION: Severe PD may impact the functional outcome of constipation without an evident effect on QOL after VMR. The results, however, remain inconclusive and further research is warranted.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients.

PURPOSE: Obstructed defecation syndrome represents 50-60% of patients with symptoms of constipation. We aimed to compare the two frequently performed surgical methods, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair, for this condition in terms of functional and surgical outcomes. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 131 female patients who were diagnosed with obstructed defecation syndrome, attributed to rectocele with or without rectal intussusception, enterocele, hysterocele or cystocele, and who underwent either laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy or transperineal mesh repair. Patients were evaluated for surgical outcomes based on the operative time, the length of hospital stay, operative complications, using prospectively designed charts. Functional outcome was assessed by using the Initial Measurement of Patient-Reported Pelvic Floor Complaints Tool. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients diagnosed with complex rectocele underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, and 80 patients diagnosed with simple rectocele underwent transperineal mesh repair. Mean age was found to be 50.35 ± 13.51 years, and mean parity 2.14 ± 1.47. Obstructed defecation symptoms significantly improved in both study groups, as measured by the Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory, Constipation Severity Instrument and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms scores. Minor postoperative complications including wound dehiscence (n = 3) and wound infection (n = 2) occurred in the transperineal mesh repair group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair are efficient and comparable techniques in terms of improvement in constipation symptoms related to obstructed defecation syndrome. A selective distribution of patients with or without multicompartmental prolapse to one of the treatment arms might be the preferred strategy.

Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series.

Introduction: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is the standard procedure for the treatment of posterior pelvic organ prolapse. Despite significant functional improvement and anatomical corrections, severe complications related to mesh augmentation can occur in a few proportions of patients. In order to decrease the number of rare but severe complications, we developed a variant of the conventional VMR without any rectal fixation and using a robotic approach with biological mesh. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with synthetic mesh (LVMRS) to those of robotic ventral rectopexy with biological mesh (RVMRB). Methods: Between 2004 and 2021, patients operated on for VMR in our unit were identified and separated into two groups: LVMRS and RVMRB. The surgical technique for both groups consisted of VMR without any rectal fixation, with mesh distally secured on the levator ani muscles. Results: 269 patients with a mean age of 62 years were operated for posterior pelvic floor disorder: rectocele (61.7%) and external rectal prolapse (34.6%). 222 (82.5%) patients received LVMRS (2004-2015), whereas 47 were operated with RVMRB (2015-2021). Both groups slightly differed for combined anterior fixation proportion (LVMRS 39% vs. RVMRB 6.4%, p < 0.001). Despite these differences, the length of stay was shorter in the RVMRB group (2 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were comparable in the two groups (1.8 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.089) and mainly consisted of minor complications. Functional outcomes were favorable and similar in both groups, with an improvement in bulging, obstructed defecation symptoms, and fecal incontinence (NS in subgroup analysis). In the long term, there were no mesh erosions reported. The overall recurrence rate was 11.9%, and was comparable in the two groups (13% LVMRS vs. 8.5, p = 0.43). Conclusions: VMR without rectal fixation is a safe and effective approach in posterior organ prolapse management. RVMRB provides comparable results in terms of recurrence and functional results, with avoidance of unabsorbable material implantation.

Large rectal diverticulum in the setting of pelvic organ prolapse treated with robotic ventral mesh rectopexy: a case report.

Background: Rectal diverticula are a very rare occurrence compared to diverticula of the colon. They are reported to account for only 0.08% of all diverticulosis. Diverticula of the rectum can be caused by congenital or acquired factors. The majority are asymptomatic, diagnosed incidentally, and require no treatment. The low incidence of rectal diverticulosis may be attributed to the unique anatomical structure and physiological environment of the rectum. However, complications can arise and may necessitate surgical or endoscopic treatment. Case Description: We report the case of a 72-year-old female with a history of diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and hypothyroidism who presented to the colorectal surgery clinic with symptoms of constipation of nearly a 50-year duration. The patient underwent an anorectal exam under anesthesia which revealed a 3 cm defect in the left levator muscles with herniated rectal wall. A large left lateral rectal diverticulum was diagnosed during the work-up for pelvic organ prolapse on defecography. She underwent robotic assisted ventral mesh rectopexy and recovered uneventfully. After 1 year of follow-up, the patient is asymptomatic, and the control colonoscopy shows no signs of the rectal diverticulum. Conclusions: Rectal diverticula can present in the setting of pelvic organ prolapse and can be safely managed with ventral mesh rectopexy.

Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is considered a valid option in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, it involves higher costs than the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to determine if less expensive robotic surgery for rectal prolapse can be safely performed. METHODS: This study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, from 7 November 2020 to 22 November 2021. The cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources in patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with the da Vinci Xi Surgical Systems was analyzed before and after technical modifications, including the reduction of robotic arms and instruments, and the execution of a double minimal peritoneal incision at the pouch of Douglas and sacral promontory (instead of the traditional inverted J incision). RESULTS: Twenty-two robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were performed [21 females, 95.5%, median age 62.0 (54.8-70.0) years]. After an initial experience performing traditional robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in four patients, we adopted technical modifications in other cases. No major complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. In total, mean cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources was €6995.5 ± 1058.0, €5912.7 ± 877.0, €2797.6 ± 545.6, and €2608.3 ± 351.5, respectively. Technical modifications allowed a significant reduction in the overall cost of hospitalization (€6604.5 ± 589.5 versus €8755.0 ± 906.4, p = 0.001), number of robotic instruments (3.1 ± 0.2 versus 4.0 ± 0.8 units, p = 0.026), and operating room time (201 ± 26 versus 253 ± 16 min, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Considering our preliminary results, robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with appropriate technical modifications can be cost-effective and safe.

Anatomic and functional results of ventral biological mesh rectopexy for posterior pelvic floor disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is the gold standard for rectal prolapse surgery, but the type of mesh reinforcement is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the anatomic and functional results of a single center cohort of patients receiving ventral rectopexy with biological mesh compared to a reference group who had implantation of synthetic mesh. We also assessed the predictive factors for recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients (2015-2021) were included in the biological mesh group and were compared to a reference group of 345 patients operated on with a synthetic mesh (2004-2017). RESULTS: In the biological mesh group, the mean age of patients was 65 years (53-72). The main disorders of the posterior pelvic floor were rectal prolapse (30 cases) or rectocele (37 cases). Two patients had solitary rectal ulcer syndrome and one had internal prolapse. VMR was performed by a laparoscopic approach with robotic assistance in 93%. After a median follow-up of 12 (4.5-23) months, the anatomic recurrence rate was 10%. The median satisfaction score assessed in a telephone interview by a semi-quantitative scale from 0 to 10 was 7. Compared to the synthetic group, neither the morbidity rate (Dindo>2) (0.6% synthetic versus 1.4% biological mesh), nor the recurrence rate (12% synthetic versus 10% biological (ns) with an average interval of 13.5 versus 14 months, respectively) were statistically significantly different. CONCLUSION: VMR with biological mesh represents an alternative to synthetic mesh. Despite its resorbable nature, biological mesh does not seem to increase the risk of recurrence and offers satisfying functional results after a medium term follow-up.

Pelvic pain is a common prolapse symptom and improvement after ventral mesh rectopexy is more frequent than deterioration or de novo pain.

AIM: The aim of this work was to assess the relationship between pelvic pain and rectal prolapse both before prolapse surgery and in the long term after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). METHOD: Patients undergoing VMR between 2004 and 2017 were contacted. Outcomes including the severity of pelvic pain were recorded using a numeric rating scale. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy eight of the 749 patients (64%) were successfully contacted. Of these, 39% reported pre-existing pelvic pain prior to VMR (group A) and 61% were pain free (group B). The median follow-up time was 8.0 years (interquartile range 5.0-10.0 years). Symptoms of obstructed defaecation were significantly more common (p = 0.002) in group A (91/187, 49%) than in group B (101/291, 35%). In contrast, faecal incontinence was more common (p = 0.007) in group B (75/291, 26%) than in group A (29/187, 15%). In group A, 76% showed improvement in pelvic pain after VMR: 61% were pain free and 39% had partial improvement in their pre-existing pelvic pain. Patients with persistent pelvic pain were younger (p = 0.01) and more likely to have revisional surgery after VMR (p = 0.0003), but there was no relation to the indication for surgery (p = 0.59). In group B, 15% reported de novo pelvic pain after VMR, and this was more common in women under 50 years old (p = 0.001), when obstructed defaecation was the indication (p = 0.03), in mesh erosion (p = <0.05) and when associated with revisional surgery (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Pelvic pain is common (39%) in patients undergoing prolapse surgery, and VMR improves this pain in most patients (76%). However, a significant number of patients fail to improve (12%), experience worsening of pain (12%) or develop de novo pelvic pain (15%).

Predictive factors for functional failure of ventral mesh rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation.

BACKGROUND: Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is widely accepted for the treatment of rectal prolapse or obstructed defecation. However, despite good anatomical results, the improvement of functional symptoms (constipation or incontinence) cannot always be obtained and in some cases these symptoms may even worsen. The aim of the present study was to identify possible predictors of functional failure after VMR. METHODS: Data of all consecutive patients who had VMR for the treatment of rectal prolapse and/or obstructed defecation between January 2017 and December 2020 in three different pelvic floor surgical centres in Italy were analysed to identify possible predictors of functional failure, intended as persistence, worsening or new onset of constipation or faecal incontinence. Symptom severity was assessed pre- and postoperatively with the Wexner Constipation score and Obstructed Defecation Syndrome score. Quality of life was assessed, also before and after treatment, with the Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life questionnaire, the Pelvic Floor Disability Index and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire. Faecal incontinence was evaluated with the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score. The functional outcomes before and after surgery were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included (M:F ratio 3:60, median age 64 years [range 33-88 years]). Forty-two patients (68.9%) had obstructed defecation syndrome, 12(19.7%) had faecal incontinence and 7 patients (11.5%) had both. A statistically significant reduction between pre- and postoperative Obstructed Defecation Syndrome and Wexner scores was reported (p < 0.0001 in both cases). However, the postoperative presence of constipation occurred in 22 patients (36.1%) (this included 3 cases of new-onset constipation). The presence of redundant colon and the pre-existent constipation were associated with an increased risk of persistence of constipation postoperatively or new-onset constipation (p = 0.004 and p < 0.0001, respectively). The use of postoperative pelvic floor rehabilitation (p = 0.034) may reduce the risk of postoperative constipation. CONCLUSIONS: VMR is a safe and effective intervention for correcting the anatomical defect of rectal prolapse. The degree of prolapse, the presence of dolichocolon and pre-existing constipation are risk factors for the persistence or new onset of postoperative constipation. Postoperative rehabilitation treatment may reduce this risk.

Higher symptom score, larger residual rectocele, and lower rectal compliance predict failure of improvement after surgical treatment of rectocele

Background: Rectocele is a frequent finding in women and is usually asymptomatic. However, it is sometimes associated with symptoms of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). While most patients with ODS due to rectocele respond well to conservative treatment, some may require surgical treatment. The aim of the study was to determine the predictors of failure of symptom improvement after rectocele repair. Methods: The study included adult women with rectocele who underwent surgical treatment by transperineal repair (TPR) or transvaginal repair (TVR). The preoperative and postoperative assessment was done using the Wexner constipation score, anorectal manometry, and defecography. Results: A total of 93 female patients with a mean age of 43.7 years were included. Among them, 65.6% of patients underwent TPR and 34.4% underwent TVR; 22 (23.7%) patients reported failure of significant improvement in ODS symptoms after surgery. The independent predictors of failure of improvement were higher preoperative Wexner score (odds ratio, OR: 1.4, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.09-1.84, p = 0.009), larger residual rectocele after repair (OR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.43-6.08, p = 0.003), and lower postoperative maximum tolerable volume (OR: 0.949, 95% CI: 0.907-0.992, p = 0.02). The predictive cutoff point for the preoperative Wexner score was 15. Conclusions: Patients with a preoperative Wexner score higher than 15 and larger residual rectocele after surgery may experience little improvement in symptoms after rectocele repair. Although TPR was associated with a poorer relief of symptoms than did TVR; it was not an independent predictor of failure. (AU)

Rectocele: victim of availability bias? Results of a Belgian survey of colorectal and gynecological surgeons.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Women with a symptomatic rectocele may undergo different trajectories depending on the specialty consulted. This survey aims to evaluate potential differences between colorectal surgeons and gynecologists concerning the management of a rectocele. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to abdominal surgeons (CS group) and gynecologists (G group) asking about their perceived definition, diagnostic workup, multidisciplinary discussion (MDT) and surgical treatment of rectoceles. The answers of both groups were analyzed with the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test at p < 0.050. RESULTS: A rectocele was defined as a prolapse of the posterior vaginal wall by 78% of the G and 41% of the CS group. All gynecologists and 49% of the CS group evaluated a rectocele clinically in dorsal decubitus, with 91% of gynecologists using a speculum and 65% using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q) scoring system, compared to < 1/3 of colorectal surgeons. A digital rectal examination was performed by 90% of the CS group and 57% of the G group. A transvaginal ultrasound was only used by the G group, while anal manometry was opted for by the CS group (65%) and minimally by the G group (14%). In the G group, a posterior repair was the preferred surgical technique (78%), whereas 63% of the CS group preferred a rectopexy. Multidisciplinary discussions (MDT) were mostly organized ad hoc. CONCLUSIONS: An availability bias is seen in different aspects of rectocele evaluation and treatment. Colorectal surgeons and gynecologists are acting based on their training and experience. Motivation for pelvic floor MDT starts with creating awareness of the availability bias.

Evaluation of the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

BACKGROUND: The current standard treatment for external rectal prolapse and symptomatic high-grade internal rectal prolapse is surgical correction with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy using either laparoscopy or robotic assistance. This study examines the number of procedures needed to complete the learning curve for robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and reach adequate performance. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all primary RVMR from 2011 to 2019 performed in a tertiary pelvic floor clinic by two colorectal surgeons (A and B) was performed. Both surgeons had previous experience with laparoscopic rectopexy, but no robotic experience. Skin-to-skin operating times (OT) were assessed using LC-CUSUM analyses. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed using CUSUM analyses. RESULTS: A total of 182 (surgeon A) and 91 (surgeon B) RVMRs were performed in total. There were no relevant differences in patient characteristics between the two surgeons. Median OT was 75 min (range 46-155; surgeon A) and 90 min (range 63-139; surgeon B). The learning curve regarding OT was completed after 36 procedures for surgeon A and 55 procedures for surgeon B. Both before and after completion of the learning curve, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates remained below a predefined acceptable level of performance. CONCLUSIONS: 36 to 55 procedures are required to complete the learning curve for RVMR. The implementation of robotic surgery does not inflict any additional risks on patients at the beginning of a surgeon's learning curve.

A quantitative study to explore functional outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

INTRODUCTION: Rectal prolapse is a life-altering problem and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is emerging as the surgical intervention of choice. However, the literature is ambiguous on its effect on bowel function and sparse as regards bladder and sexual function. This study assesses short-term functional outcomes following LVMR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This quantitative retrospective study with a pretest-post-test design included 130 adults who had undergone LVMR from October 2010 to December 2018 in a tertiary centre. Analysis with paired-samples t-test and Wilcoxon matched pairs test was done using SPSS (v26). RESULTS: The median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 48-74 years); 123 (94.6%) were female. The median length of stay was two days (interquartile range, 1-2 days). A total of 104 (80%) sets of medical notes were reviewed. One patient had recurrence of rectal prolapse. Synthetic mesh was used in 24 patients (23.1%) and biological mesh in 80 (76.9%). One patient had extrusion of a synthetic mesh and required surgery; 31(23.8%) completed the Electronic Patient Assessment Questionnaire for Pelvic Floor. Overall, the improvement in bladder function was not statistically significant (p = 0.670). A statistically significant improvement was seen for all bowel symptoms (p = 0.002) excluding constipation (p = 0.295). Irritable bowel symptoms associated with rectal prolapse improved significantly following LVMR (p = 0.001). Vaginal prolapse (p < 0.0005), dyspareunia (p = 0.001) and bowel symptoms affecting sexual intercourse (p = 0.01) improved, but improvement in overall sexual function was not statistically significant (p = 0.081). CONCLUSIONS: LVMR improves bowel function overall, although it can worsen constipation. It has the potential to improve sexual function but makes negligible difference to bladder function.

Ninety-day morbidity of robot-assisted redo surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse, mesh erosion and pelvic pain: lessons learned from 9 years' experience in a tertiary referral centre.

AIM: With increasing follow-up of patients treated with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) more redo surgery can be expected for recurrent rectal prolapse, mesh erosion and pelvic pain. The aim of this study is to evaluate the 90-day morbidity of robot-assisted redo interventions. METHOD: All robot-assisted redo interventions after primary transabdominal repair of rectal prolapse between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively analysed and compared with the results for patients after primary robot-assisted VMR during the same period. The redo interventions were divided into groups based on the indication for surgery (recurrent prolapse, mesh erosion, pelvic pain). Intraoperative complications and 90-day postoperative morbidity were evaluated. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty nine patients were treated with primary VMR, with 73 for recurrent rectal prolapse, 12 for mesh erosion and 14 for pelvic pain. Complications of recurrent prolapse surgeries were comparable to those of primary VMR (p > 0.05). More intraoperative complications, minor and major complications were seen in redo surgery for erosion compared with primary VMR (23% vs. 3%, p = 0.01; 31% vs. 11%, p = 0.055; and 38% vs. 1%, p < 0.01 respectively). The frequency of intraoperative complications after redo surgery for pelvic pain was 7% with minor and major morbidity rates of 14% and 7% (p > 0.05). Half of the patients with pelvic pain experienced relief of their symptoms. CONCLUSION: Redo surgery for management of recurrent rectal prolapse is safe. Redo surgery for mesh erosion is associated with high morbidity rates. Redo surgery for pelvic pain can have major complications and is only effective in half of the cases.

Meta-analysis on current status, efficacy, and safety of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse treatment: can robotic surgery become the gold standard?

PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted surgery and robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy are gaining attention in the treatment of rectal prolapse and increased positive findings are proposed. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is comparable with the conventional laparoscopic approach surgery. METHODS: Five major databases (PubMed, Sciencedirect, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies. Observational studies of the effect and safety of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic approaches on ventral mesh rectopexy were included. Odd ratios (OR) and weight mean difference (WMD) were used for dichotomous data and continuous data analysis. Clinical outcomes, functional outcomes, and cost-effectiveness data were extracted for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Compared to the laparoscopic approach, a significant shorter length of hospital stay (LOS), lesser intraoperative blood loss, and lower post-operative complication rate of RVMR group were observed. However, operation time of RVMR was significant increased. The expense of RVMR was higher than LVMR; mean Wexner scores and fecal incontinence were lower in RVMR group while there were no statistical differences. CONCLUSION: The result of the current analysis revealed that the robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is effective and feasible in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, long-term follow-up and results are needed for the promotion of this approach. There is a long way for robotic-assisted surgery to become a gold standard in rectal surgery.