• Cleveland Clinic Constipation score
• Perineal descent
• Quality of Life
• Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy
• Rome IV criteria

• Female
• Humans
• Middle Aged
• Constipation/surgery
• Laparoscopy/methods
• Perineum/surgery
• Quality of Life
• Rectal Prolapse/surgery
• Rectum/surgery
• Retrospective Studies
• Surgical Mesh
• Treatment Outcome

The effectiveness of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in patients with defecatory disorders secondary to internal rectal prolapse is poorly evidenced. A UK-based multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed to determine the clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls at medium-term follow-up.

The randomized controlled trial was conducted from March 1, 2015 TO January 31, 2019. A stepped-wedge RCT design permitted observer-masked data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR (controls) with those who had undergone surgery. Adult participants with radiologically confirmed IRP refractory to conservative treatment were randomized to three arms with different delays before surgery. Efficacy outcome data were collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 weeks). Clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls was defined as ≥ 1.0-point reduction in Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life and/or Symptoms (PAC-QOL and/or PAC-SYM) scores at 24 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included 14-day diary data, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), St Marks incontinence score, the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), the chronic constipation Behavioral Response to Illness Questionnaire (CC-BRQ), and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ).

Of a calculated sample size of 114, only 28 patients (100% female) were randomized from 6 institutions (due mainly to national pause on mesh-related surgery). Nine were assigned to the T0 arm, 10 to T12, and 9 to T24. There were no substantial differences in baseline characteristics between the three arms. Compared to baseline, significant reduction (improvement) in PAC-QOL and PAC-SYM scores were observed at 24 weeks post-surgery (– 1.09 [95% CI – 1.76, – 0.41], p = 0.0019, and – 0.92 [– 1.52, – 0.32], p = 0.0029, respectively) in the 19 patients available for analysis (9 were excluded for dropout [n = 2] or missing primary outcome [n = 7]). There was a clinically significant long-term reduction in PAC-QOL scores (− 1.38 [− 2.94, 0.19], p = 0.0840 at 72 weeks). Statistically significant improvements in PAC-SYM scores persisted to 72 weeks (− 1.51 [− 2.87, − 0.16], p = 0.0289). Compared to baseline, no differences were found in secondary outcomes, except for significant improvements at 24 and 48 weeks on CC-BRQ avoidance behavior (− 14.3 [95% CI − 23.3, − 5.4], and − 0.92 [− 1.52, − 0.32], respectively), CC-BRQ safety behavior (− 13.7 [95% CI − 20.5, − 7.0], and − 13.0 [− 19.8, − 6.1], respectively), and BIPQ negative perceptions (− 16.3 [95% CI − 23.5, − 9.0], and − 10.5 [− 17.9, − 3.2], respectively).

With the caveat of under-powering due to poor recruitment, the study presents the first randomized trial evidence of short-term benefit of LVMR for internal rectal prolapse.

ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN11747152).

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10151-022-02633-w.

• Constipation
• Randomized controlled trial
• Rectal prolapse
• Rectopexy
• Stepped wedge

• Adult
• Humans
• Female
• Male
• Rectal Prolapse/complications
• Rectal Prolapse/surgery
• Rectal Prolapse/diagnosis
• Quality of Life
• Surgical Mesh
• Laparoscopy/adverse effects
• Constipation/surgery
• Constipation/complications
• Treatment Outcome
• Chronic Disease

The minimally important difference (MID) of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQL) scale has never been determined. Thus, in this study, we aimed to estimate the MID of the Japanese FIQL for patients with posterior compartment prolapse (PCP).

For 3-months after surgery, we followed a prospective cohort of 136 patients with PCP combined with fecal incontinence (FI) who had undergone ventral rectopexy between 2012 and 2018. Usable data from 114 patients were analyzed. Patients have both completed the FIQL and the 36-Item Short Forum Health Survey (SF-36) before and after surgery. Distribution-based MID values were estimated at 1/2 SD and the standard error of measurement (SEM) for domain and total scores across time points. Changes in the domain scores anchored to changes in a SF-36 overall health assessment question were used to estimate anchor-based MID. To be interpreted as true change, the median, anchor-based MID values that were greater than the corresponding SEM were proposed as estimates of the MID for the FIQL.

Distribution-based MID of 1/2 SD for each domain and total score ranged between 0.3 and 0.4, whereas SEM ranges were between 0.2 and 0.3. The anchor-based approach resulted in the median MID estimates of 0.4 to 1.0. Final estimates of MID for each FIQL and total score were as follows: lifestyle (0.6-1.1), coping/behavior (0.8-1.4), depression/self-perception (0.4-0.8), embarrassment (1.0-1.6), and total score (0.7-1.1).

The results provide a basis for clinically important differences in FIQL scores after surgery for patients with PCP and FI.

External rectal prolapse is a relatively rare disease, in which male patients account for a minority. The selection of abdominal repair or perineal repair for male patients has rarely been investigated.

Fifty-one male patients receiving abdominal repair (laparoscopic ventral rectopexy) or perineal repair (Delorme or Altemeier procedures) at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between March 2013 and September 2019 were retrospectively analysed. We compared the recurrence, complication rate, post-operative defecation disorder, length of stay, and quality of life between the abdominal and perineal groups.

Of the 51 patients, 45 had a complete follow-up, with a median of 48.5 months (range, 22.8–101.8 months). A total of 35 patients were under age 40 years. The complication rate associated with abdominal repair was less than that associated with perineal repair (0% vs 20.7%, P = 0.031) and the recurrence rate was also lower (9.5% vs 41.7%, P = 0.018). Multivariate analysis showed that perineal repair (odds ratio, 9.827; 95% confidence interval, 1.296–74.50; P = 0.027) might be a risk factor for recurrence. Moreover, only perineal repair significantly improved post-operative constipation status (preoperative vs post-operative, 72.4% vs 25.0%, P = 0.001). There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. No patient's sexual function was affected by the surgery.

Both surgical approaches were safe in men. Compared with perineal repair, the complication rate and recurrence rate for abdominal repair were lower. However, perineal repair was better able to correct constipation.

• Guangdong Medical Research

This study aimed to evaluate factors that contribute to the recurrence of external rectal prolapse (ERP) following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR).

All patients who underwent LVR using synthetic meshes between 2011 and 2018 were prospectively included. A standard questionnaire including the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) and Constipation Scoring System (CSS) was administered preoperatively and postoperatively. Defecography was performed 6 months postoperatively. Univariate and backward stepwise multivariate Cox analysis was performed to determine the prognostic factors of recurrence.

In total, 132 patients with a median follow-up of 46 months were included. The overall recurrence rate was 6.8% (n = 9), as confirmed by defecography at 6 months in six of the patients. None of the patients developed mesh erosion. FISI and CSS scores were significantly reduced at 3 months and remained significantly reduced for 3 years. Multivariate analyses revealed that the predictors of recurrence included male sex (hazards ratio, 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-43.0) and age >80 years (hazards ratio, 10.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-86.3). Eight patients with recurrence underwent surgery via Delorme's procedure (n = 7) and posterior rectopexy (n = 1). Two patients with new-onset rectoanal intussusception and one with uncorrected sigmoidocoele underwent repeat LVR.

LVR is effective in treating ERP with low morbidity and low recurrence. Male patients and patients older than 80 years are at increased risk of recurrence. Hence, the LVR technique should be modified or coupled with other perineal procedures when treating ERP, especially in male patients.

• external rectal prolapse
• laparoscopic ventral rectopexy
• recurrence
• risk factor

• Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy
• Long-term results
• Quality of life
• Rectoanal intussusception
• Rectocele

• Constipation/etiology
• Constipation/surgery
• Digestive System Surgical Procedures
• Fecal Incontinence/etiology
• Fecal Incontinence/surgery
• Humans
• Laparoscopy
• Middle Aged
• Rectal Prolapse/surgery
• Rectum/surgery
• Recurrence
• Surgical Mesh
• Treatment Outcome

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR).

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on the recurrence rates of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) or intussusception (IS) after SR and VMR. Results were pooled and procedures compared; a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients with CRP and IS who underwent VMR using biological versus synthetic meshes. A meta-analysis of studies comparing SR and VMR was undertaken. The Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies score, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to assess the quality of studies.

Twenty-two studies with 976 patients were included in the SR group and 31 studies with 1605 patients in the VMR group; among these studies, five were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall, in patients with CRP, the recurrence rate was 8.6 per cent after SR and 3.7 per cent after VMR (P < 0.001). However, in patients with IS treated using VMR, the recurrence rate was 9.7 per cent. Recurrence rates after VMR did not differ with use of biological or synthetic mesh in patients treated for CRP (4.1 versus 3.6 per cent; P = 0.789) and or IS (11.4 versus 11.0 per cent; P = 0.902). Results from the meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, and the difference in recurrence rates between SR and VMR groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.76).

Although the systematic review showed a higher recurrence rate after SR than VMR for treatment of CRP, this result was not confirmed by meta-analysis. Therefore, robust RCTs comparing SR and biological VMR are required.

• external rectal prolapse
• laparoscopic ventral rectopexy
• midterm results

• Age
• Altemeier
• Perineal rectosigmoidectomy
• Rectal prolapse

The aim of this study was to assess, whether robotic-assistance in ventral mesh rectopexy adds benefit to laparoscopy in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cost-effectiveness and anatomical and functional outcome.

A prospective randomized study was conducted on patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for internal or external rectal prolapse at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, recruited in February–May 2012. The primary outcomes were health care costs from the hospital perspective and HRQoL measured by the 15D-instrument. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification method and functional outcome by symptom questionnaires at 24 months follow-up.

There were 30 females (mean age 62.5 years, SD 11.2), 16 in the RVMR group and 14 in the LVMR group. The surgery-related costs of the RVMR were 1.5 times higher than the cost of the LVMR. At 3 months the changes in HRQoL were ‘much better’ (RVMR) and ‘slightly better’ (LVMR) but declined in both groups at 2 years (RVMR vs. LVMR, p > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness was poor at 2 years for both techniques, but if the outcomes were assumed to last for 5 years, it improved significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the RVMR compared to LVMR was €39,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 2 years and improved to €16,707/QALYs at 5 years. Posterior wall anatomy was restored similarly in both groups. The subjective satisfaction rate was 87% in the RVMR group and 69% in the LVMR group (p = 0.83).

Although more expensive than LVMR in the short term, RVMR is cost-effective in long-term. The minimally invasive VMR improves pelvic floor function, sexual function and restores posterior compartment anatomy. The effect on HRQoL is minor, with no differences between techniques.

• Cost-analysis
• Laparoscopic
• Quality of life
• Robotic
• Ventral mesh rectopexy

• Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy
• Mesh
• Obstructed defecation
• Pelvic floor
• Quality of life
• Short-term

• Pregnancy
• delivery
• pelvic floor
• prolapse
• rectopexy

• biofeedback
• internal Delorme's procedure
• obstructed defecation syndrome
• pelvic floor disorders
• pelvic floor rehabilitation
• proctology

External and internal rectal prolapse with their affiliated rectocele and enterocele, are associated with debilitating symptoms such as obstructed defecation, pelvic pain and faecal incontinence. Since perineal procedures are associated with a higher recurrence rate, an abdominal approach is commonly preferred. Despite the description of greater than three hundred different procedures, thus far no clear superiority of one surgical technique has been demonstrated. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a relatively new and promising technique to correct rectal prolapse. In contrast to the abdominal procedures of past decades, VMR avoids posterolateral rectal mobilisation and thereby minimizes the risk of postoperative constipation. Because of a perceived acceptable recurrence rate, good functional results and low mesh-related morbidity in the short to medium term, VMR has been popularized in the past decade. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted VMR is now being progressively performed internationally and several articles and guidelines propose the procedure as the treatment of choice for rectal prolapse. In this article, an outline of the current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse is presented.

• Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy
• Robot
• Rectal prolapse
• External rectal prolapse
• Internal rectal prolapse
• Rectocele
• Mesh erosion
• Obstructed defecation
• Faecal incontinence
• Biological mesh

• Defecation
• Fecal Incontinence/etiology
• Fecal Incontinence/physiopathology
• Humans
• Laparoscopy/adverse effects
• Laparoscopy/instrumentation
• Postoperative Complications/etiology
• Recovery of Function
• Rectal Prolapse/complications
• Rectal Prolapse/physiopathology
• Rectal Prolapse/surgery
• Risk Factors
• Robotics/instrumentation
• Surgical Mesh
• Treatment Outcome