BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been considerable interest in developing technology as well as techniques that could widen the therapeutic horizons of endoscopy. Rectal prolapse, a benign localized condition causing considerable morbidity, could be an excellent focus for new endoscopic therapies. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of endoluminal fixation of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall, after pushing it up inside the body, using an in vivo animal model. METHODS: We performed an in vivo comparative surgical study in a porcine model, including laparoscopic mobilization of the rectum and posterior rectopexy (standard surgical method) or endoluminal tacking of the rectum. After proving feasibility in ex vivo and acute studies, we performed a survival study to evaluate the safety of endoluminal tacking of the mobilized rectum to the anterior abdominal wall. The main outcome measures were successful completion of the tasks, maintenance of the fixation, complications associated with the methods, and survival studies including histopathological examinations of the fixation sites. RESULTS: There were two groups: laparoscopic rectopexy (8 animals) and endoluminal fixation of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall (10 animals). There were no differences between these two groups in their postoperative recovery. The group with the endoluminal fixation was found to have adequate attachment of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall (measured attachment pressure in the endoluminal group = 6.06 ± 0.52 ft-lb, in the control group = 4.86 ± 2.00 ft-lb) on both gross and microscopic evaluation. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic fixation of the mobilized rectum is feasible and safe in this model and in the future may provide an effective alternative to current treatment options for rectal prolapse.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been considerable interest in developing technology as well as techniques that could widen the therapeutic horizons of endoscopy. Rectal prolapse, a benign localized condition causing considerable morbidity, could be an excellent focus for new endoscopic therapies. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of endoluminal fixation of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall, after pushing it up inside the body, using an in vivo animal model. METHODS: We performed an in vivo comparative surgical study in a porcine model, including laparoscopic mobilization of the rectum and posterior rectopexy (standard surgical method) or endoluminal tacking of the rectum. After proving feasibility in ex vivo and acute studies, we performed a survival study to evaluate the safety of endoluminal tacking of the mobilized rectum to the anterior abdominal wall. The main outcome measures were successful completion of the tasks, maintenance of the fixation, complications associated with the methods, and survival studies including histopathological examinations of the fixation sites. RESULTS: There were two groups: laparoscopic rectopexy (8 animals) and endoluminal fixation of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall (10 animals). There were no differences between these two groups in their postoperative recovery. The group with the endoluminal fixation was found to have adequate attachment of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall (measured attachment pressure in the endoluminal group = 6.06 ± 0.52 ft-lb, in the control group = 4.86 ± 2.00 ft-lb) on both gross and microscopic evaluation. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic fixation of the mobilized rectum is feasible and safe in this model and in the future may provide an effective alternative to current treatment options for rectal prolapse.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Hester Yui Shan Cheung; Chi Chiu Chung; Wilson Wen Chieng Tsang; James Cheuk Hoo Wong; Kevin Kwok Kay Yau; Michael Ka Wah Li Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2009-12
Authors: Y Takesue; T Yokoyama; Y Murakami; S Akagi; H Ohge; Y Yokoyama; Y Sakashita; N Tatsumoto; K Miyamoto; Y Matsuura Journal: Surg Today Date: 1999 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245