BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and pelvic organ prolapse suspension surgery (POPS) in management of patients presenting with rectal prolapse. METHODS: Our study was a prospective cohort trial in which 120 female patients with complete rectal prolapse were included, 60 patients had had VMR and the other 60 had had POPS as a surgical management for complete rectal prolapse. Results had been compared 6 months postoperatively regarding operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, complications of surgery including recurrence of the rectal prolapse, the efficacy of each operation in treatment of rectal prolapse and associated symptoms. RESULTS: The patients were assessed 6 months postoperatively. There was no significant statistical difference regarding hospital stay and postoperative pain. Operative time was significantly shorter in POPS in comparison with VMR (P value < 0.05). VMR showed slight improvement regarding constipation and continence scores; however, this was statistically significant. VMR showed less complications compared to POPS. Complications with rectopexy happened only with 4 patients compared to 24 patients in POPS groups, 2 cases of recurrence in rectopexy group compared to 6 cases of recurrence in POPS. CONCLUSION: POPS is comparable to VMR in management of rectal prolapse and in improving the ODS symptoms. Thus, POPS can be used as easier, faster option to treat rectal prolapse in selected patients.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and pelvic organ prolapse suspension surgery (POPS) in management of patients presenting with rectal prolapse. METHODS: Our study was a prospective cohort trial in which 120 female patients with complete rectal prolapse were included, 60 patients had had VMR and the other 60 had had POPS as a surgical management for complete rectal prolapse. Results had been compared 6 months postoperatively regarding operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, complications of surgery including recurrence of the rectal prolapse, the efficacy of each operation in treatment of rectal prolapse and associated symptoms. RESULTS: The patients were assessed 6 months postoperatively. There was no significant statistical difference regarding hospital stay and postoperative pain. Operative time was significantly shorter in POPS in comparison with VMR (P value < 0.05). VMR showed slight improvement regarding constipation and continence scores; however, this was statistically significant. VMR showed less complications compared to POPS. Complications with rectopexy happened only with 4 patients compared to 24 patients in POPS groups, 2 cases of recurrence in rectopexy group compared to 6 cases of recurrence in POPS. CONCLUSION: POPS is comparable to VMR in management of rectal prolapse and in improving the ODS symptoms. Thus, POPS can be used as easier, faster option to treat rectal prolapse in selected patients.
Authors: F Ceci; E Spaziani; S Corelli; G Casciaro; A Martellucci; A Costantino; A Napoleoni; B Cipriani; S Nicodemi; C Di Grazia; M Avallone; S Orsini; A Tudisco; F Aiuti; F Stagnitti Journal: G Chir Date: 2013 May-Jun
Authors: A Senapati; R G Gray; L J Middleton; J Harding; R K Hills; N C M Armitage; L Buckley; J M A Northover Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: E M van der Schans; M A Boom; M El Moumni; P M Verheijen; I A M J Broeders; E C J Consten Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2021-11-23 Impact factor: 3.781