Shahin Hajibandeh1, Shahab Hajibandeh2, Chokkalingam Arun3, Adedayo Adeyemo3, Brendan McIlroy3, Rajeev Peravali4. 1. Department of General Surgery, Hereford County Hospital, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, UK. shahin_hajibandeh@yahoo.com. 2. Department of General Surgery, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Betsi Cadwaladr University Board, Wrexham, UK. 3. Department of General Surgery, Hereford County Hospital, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, UK. 4. Department of General Surgery, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy (LMR) and laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) in patients with rectal prolapse. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits. Recurrence, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), surgical site infections, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome measures. RESULTS: We identified 5 comparative studies reporting a total of 307 patients evaluating outcomes of LMR (n=160) or LPSR (n=147) in patients with rectal prolapse. LMR was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.28, P=0.009) but longer procedure time (MD: 23.93, P<0.0001) compared to LPSR. However, there was no significant difference in CCIS (MD: -1.02, P=0.50), CCCS (MD: -1.54, P=0.47), surgical site infection (OR: 1.48, P=0.71), and length of hospital stay (MD: -1.54, P=0.47) between two groups. No mesh erosion was reported in any of the included studies at maximum follow-up point. Sub-group analyses with respect to ventral mesh rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy, randomised studies, and adult patients were consistent with the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: LMR seems to be associated with lower recurrence but longer procedure time compared to LPSR. Although no mesh-related complications have been reported by the included studies, no definitive conclusions can be made considering that the included studies were inadequately powered for such outcome. Future high-quality randomised studies with adequate sample size are required.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy (LMR) and laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) in patients with rectal prolapse. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits. Recurrence, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), surgical site infections, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome measures. RESULTS: We identified 5 comparative studies reporting a total of 307 patients evaluating outcomes of LMR (n=160) or LPSR (n=147) in patients with rectal prolapse. LMR was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.28, P=0.009) but longer procedure time (MD: 23.93, P<0.0001) compared to LPSR. However, there was no significant difference in CCIS (MD: -1.02, P=0.50), CCCS (MD: -1.54, P=0.47), surgical site infection (OR: 1.48, P=0.71), and length of hospital stay (MD: -1.54, P=0.47) between two groups. No mesh erosion was reported in any of the included studies at maximum follow-up point. Sub-group analyses with respect to ventral mesh rectopexy, posterior mesh rectopexy, randomised studies, and adult patients were consistent with the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: LMR seems to be associated with lower recurrence but longer procedure time compared to LPSR. Although no mesh-related complications have been reported by the included studies, no definitive conclusions can be made considering that the included studies were inadequately powered for such outcome. Future high-quality randomised studies with adequate sample size are required.