BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy (LVR) is a minimally invasive, autonomic nerve-sparing technique to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. The position of the mesh on the anterior aspect of the rectum in the rectovaginal septum allows correction of concomitant rectocele and enterocele. METHODS: Demographic, perioperative, and follow-up data of consecutive patients were analyzed in order to audit our 10-years' experience with the technique. RESULTS: From January 1999 to December 2008, 405 patients (93% female) underwent LVR for internal rectal prolapse (45.9%, n = 186), total rectal prolapse (43%, n = 174) and rectocele or enterocele (11.1%, n = 45). Mean age was 54.6 years (SD 15). The median hospital stay was 4 days (range 2-21). Conversion rate was 2%. There was no postoperative mortality. At a mean follow-up of 25.3 months, recurrence was observed in 4.6% (19 patients). Most often detachment of the mesh at the sacral promontory was found. Late complications occurred in 18% of patients. In five patients, LVR combined with perineotomy was complicated by mesh erosion into the vagina. Mesh erosion was not observed after LVR without perineotomy. Symptomatic improvement was observed in 85% of patients with total rectal prolapse and in 70% of patients with internal rectal prolapse (p < 0.050). The difference was mainly due to a lesser effect on obstructed defecation symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: LVR, with or without perineotomy, appears to be safe and feasible, with relatively low morbidity. Functional outcome data support its efficacy. The indication for LVR in patients with internal rectal prolapse could be optimised.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy (LVR) is a minimally invasive, autonomic nerve-sparing technique to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. The position of the mesh on the anterior aspect of the rectum in the rectovaginal septum allows correction of concomitant rectocele and enterocele. METHODS: Demographic, perioperative, and follow-up data of consecutive patients were analyzed in order to audit our 10-years' experience with the technique. RESULTS: From January 1999 to December 2008, 405 patients (93% female) underwent LVR for internal rectal prolapse (45.9%, n = 186), total rectal prolapse (43%, n = 174) and rectocele or enterocele (11.1%, n = 45). Mean age was 54.6 years (SD 15). The median hospital stay was 4 days (range 2-21). Conversion rate was 2%. There was no postoperative mortality. At a mean follow-up of 25.3 months, recurrence was observed in 4.6% (19 patients). Most often detachment of the mesh at the sacral promontory was found. Late complications occurred in 18% of patients. In five patients, LVR combined with perineotomy was complicated by mesh erosion into the vagina. Mesh erosion was not observed after LVR without perineotomy. Symptomatic improvement was observed in 85% of patients with total rectal prolapse and in 70% of patients with internal rectal prolapse (p < 0.050). The difference was mainly due to a lesser effect on obstructed defecation symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: LVR, with or without perineotomy, appears to be safe and feasible, with relatively low morbidity. Functional outcome data support its efficacy. The indication for LVR in patients with internal rectal prolapse could be optimised.
Authors: M P Gosselink; H Joshi; S Adusumilli; R S van Onkelen; S Fourie; R Hompes; O M Jones; C Cunningham; I Lindsey Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: F Ris; K J Gorissen; J Ragg; M P Gosselink; N C Buchs; R Hompes; C Cunningham; O Jones; A Slater; I Lindsey Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Ugo Grossi; Natasha Stevens; Eleanor McAlees; Jon Lacy-Colson; Steven Brown; Anthony Dixon; Gian Luca Di Tanna; S Mark Scott; Christine Norton; Nadine Marlin; James Mason; Charles H Knowles Journal: Trials Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 2.279