BACKGROUND: Open rectovaginopexy is an effective procedure for the treatment of both rectal prolapse and anterior rectocele. This study investigates our results of laparoscopic rectovaginopexy (LRVP). METHODS: A consecutive series of 14 patients (median age, 73 years; range 24-92) with rectal prolapse was planned for LRVP. Pre-, per- and postoperative parameters were recorded. Followup was performed at the outpatients' clinic. RESULTS: The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (range, 3-14). There was one fatal cerebrovascular accident 14 days postoperatively; this patient was excluded from further analysis. Median follow-up was 7 months (range, 0.75-38). During follow-up, 11 of 13 patients (85%) experienced resolution or major improvement of their symptoms. Anal incontinence was diminished in 9 of 13 cases (69%). Constipation improved in 2 of 3 patients (66%). These three patients experienced a combination of both anal incontinence and costipation, preoperatively. Recurrence occurred in 2 patients (15%). Two others had a minor residual mucosal prolapse. No patients reported symptoms suggestive of operation-induced constipation or dyspareunia. CONCLUSIONS: LRVP is feasible, and seems to be an effective procedure for rectal prolapse. No operation-induced constipation was observed in this series. Taking into account the age and co-morbidities of these patients, morbidity and mortality may be considered acceptable.
BACKGROUND: Open rectovaginopexy is an effective procedure for the treatment of both rectal prolapse and anterior rectocele. This study investigates our results of laparoscopic rectovaginopexy (LRVP). METHODS: A consecutive series of 14 patients (median age, 73 years; range 24-92) with rectal prolapse was planned for LRVP. Pre-, per- and postoperative parameters were recorded. Followup was performed at the outpatients' clinic. RESULTS: The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (range, 3-14). There was one fatal cerebrovascular accident 14 days postoperatively; this patient was excluded from further analysis. Median follow-up was 7 months (range, 0.75-38). During follow-up, 11 of 13 patients (85%) experienced resolution or major improvement of their symptoms. Anal incontinence was diminished in 9 of 13 cases (69%). Constipation improved in 2 of 3 patients (66%). These three patients experienced a combination of both anal incontinence and costipation, preoperatively. Recurrence occurred in 2 patients (15%). Two others had a minor residual mucosal prolapse. No patients reported symptoms suggestive of operation-induced constipation or dyspareunia. CONCLUSIONS: LRVP is feasible, and seems to be an effective procedure for rectal prolapse. No operation-induced constipation was observed in this series. Taking into account the age and co-morbidities of these patients, morbidity and mortality may be considered acceptable.
Authors: Jan J van Iersel; Tim J C Paulides; Paul M Verheijen; John W Lumley; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: L Franceschilli; D Varvaras; I Capuano; C I Ciangola; F Giorgi; G Boehm; A L Gaspari; P Sileri Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-01-11 Impact factor: 3.781