Ventral rectopexy

Last updated
Ventral rectopexy
Other namesAnterior rectopexy, [1] Ventropexy, [2] Ventral mesh rectopexy, Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy
Specialty Colorectal surgery

Ventral rectopexy is a surgical procedure for external rectal prolapse, internal rectal prolapse (rectal intussusception), and sometimes other conditions such as rectocele, obstructed defecation syndrome, or solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. The rectum is fixed into the desired position, usually using a biological or synthetic mesh which is attached to the sacral promontory. The effect of the procedure is correction of the abnormal descended position of the posterior compartment of the pelvis (i.e., the rectum), reinforcement of the anterior (front) surface of the rectum, and elevation of the pelvic floor. [3] In females, the rectal-vaginal septum is reinforced, and there is the opportunity to simultaneously correct any prolapse of the middle compartment (i.e., the uterus). [4] In such cases, ventral rectopexy may be combined with sacrocolpopexy. [5] [3] The surgery is usually performed laparoscopically (via small openings made in the abdomen).

Contents

Background

There are over 300 different variations of surgical procedures described for rectal prolapse, and this area has seen rapid development. [3] However, there is no clear consensus regarding the best method. [6] Surgical treatment for rectal prolapse may be via the perineal or abdominal (transabdominal / peritoneal) approach. [5] [6] Generally speaking, perineal procedures have less complications but higher rates of recurrence compared to abdominal procedures. [7] Ventral rectopexy falls into the abdominal procedure category, and can be considered as a type of abdominal rectopexy.

Abdominal rectopexy encompasses several procedures which involve mobilization and fixation of the rectum, with or without resection, via abdominal approach. Some of types of abdominal rectopexy are now rarely or never performed. For example, the Ripstein rectopexy (anterior fixation of mesh below the sacral promontory) and the Wells procedure (involving detachment of the lateral ligaments of the rectum) have been abandoned. [8] In general, abdominal rectopexy procedures have been associated with post-operative problems with defecation such as new or worsened constipation, obstructed defecation or fecal incontinence. [9] [2] This does not seem to be a significant problem with ventral rectopexy, [2] which represents the most recent development of abdominal rectopexy. In men, mobilization of the rectum may risk the development of erectile dysfunction. [9]

Another way of categorizing surgery for prolapse of pelvic organs is suspensive or resective (involving removal of sections of the bowel wall). Ventral rectopexy alone is a syspensive type surgery, a category which also includes colposacropexy. [10] Resection rectopexy additionally involves removal of a section of the sigmoid colon (sigmoidectomy). It is thought to have decreased post operative problems of constipation, because the redundant colon is removed and therefore cannot "kink". However, there is no evidence that this improves the outcomes, and the necessary creation of an anastomosis (surgically created joining between two ends of bowel when a section of bowel is removed) increases the risk of severe complications. [8]

Orr-Loygue procedure (lateral mesh rectopexy)

Ventral rectopexy with an autologous graft (fascia lata), [9] and then with a synthetic mesh for external rectal prolapse was first reported in 1971. [11] The Orr-Loygue procedure (lateral mesh rectopexy) was described in 1984. [12] [5] The Orr-Loygue procedure involved anterior and posterior mobilization of the rectum to the level of the levator ani muscle and removal of the pouch of Douglas. Mesh was sutured to the lateral surfaces (sides) of the rectum. [1]

Ventral rectopexy

The Orr-Loygue procedure was modified by D'Hoore in 2004. [13] In ventral rectopexy, there is no posterior dissection and mobilization of the rectum apart from to expose the sacral promontory. With no posterior (dorsal) or lateral dissection, damage to the autonomic nerves is minimized. As a result, there are less problems with post operative constipation. There is no excision of the pouch of Douglas, and the mesh is placed directly onto the anterior (ventral) surface of the rectum. This procedure aims to suspend the middle and lower sections of the rectum. This modified procedure is now known as the anterior rectopexy or ventral rectopexy. [1] D'Hoore also used a laparoscopic approach (laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, LVMR). [14]

After 2002, the minimally invasive trans-anal approach known as Stapled Trans-Anal Rectal Resection (STARR) became popular for treating obstructed defecation syndrome. However, over time, there has been a general trend away from STARR towards abdominal rectopexy for surgical treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome. [15]

Ventral mesh rectopexy has become the one of the most popular options for rectal prolapse. [16] [7] Ventral rectopexy also provides the opportunity to simultaneously correct any prolapse of the middle compartment of the pelvis. [4] and is sometimes combined with sacrocolpopexy. [5]

Controversy regarding use of mesh

There has been some controversy connected with transvaginal placement of mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. This is because there is a risk of erosion (tissue breakdown around the mesh) and sepsis (infection). [4] In 2008 and 2016 the US Food and Drug Administration published guidance about potential serious complications caused by such meshes and upgraded their risk classification of such meshes from Class II (moderate risk) to Class III (high risk). Procedures involving transvaginal mesh have since decreased by 40–60% in the USA. [14] In 2011, manufacturers of permanent transvaginal meshes withdrew the products from the market. [17] In Europe, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) stated in 2015 that implantation of any mesh via the vaginal route should be done only in complicated cases where a primary repair has failed. [14] A Cochrane review in 2016 stated that the risks were higher with such meshes compared to native tissue repair (using the patient's own tissues instead of mesh). [17] Transvaginal meshes have higher risk of repeat surgery, injury to the bladder, and stress urinary incontinence which appears after the surgery. [17] They concluded that transvaginal meshes have limited benefit in the primary surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. [17] The review was updated in 2024 with the same conclusions but based on newly available evidence. [18]

In response to the controversy connected with transvaginal meshes, the Pelvic Floor Society on behalf of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland issued a position statement regarding the use of mesh in ventral rectopexy in 2020. They stated that meshes in ventral rectopexy are not the same because the mesh is inserted between the rectum and the vagina and not directly into the vagina as with transvaginal meshes. [14] They also stated that according to current evidence ventral mesh rectopexy is the best available treatment to restore normal rectal function, and that the estimated overall risk of complications is about 2.5% based on the worst-case scenario. [14]

Indications

The definitive indication for ventral rectopexy is:

Relative indications are:

Contraindications

Absolute contraindications are:

Relative contraindications are:

Procedure

Approach

There are 3 options for surgical approach: open abdominal surgery, laparoscopic approach or robotic surgery. The laparoscopic approach is safer than open surgery, [4] and there is less risk of complications after the procedure. [23] There is also less blood loss, less pain after the procedure, shorter average length of stay in hospital and faster recovery. [8] [23] Rarely, the procedure must be converted into an open abdominal surgery. [7]

The procedure is still almost always carried out via laparoscopic approach. [14] However, increasingly some surgeons use robotic surgery to conduct the procedure. [5] Some surgeons claim that the use of robotic surgery makes ventral rectopexy less technically demanding, because it requires careful dissection and suture placement in a tight, narrow space. [1] This is especially true in patients with a narrow pelvis. [16] Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is also difficult in patients who are obese. [8]

Robotic approach has the benefit of three-dimensional visualization, precise dissection and the possibility of refined, articulated movements suitable for a narrow conical space such as the pelvis. [16] There is less trauma to the tissues and less blood loss compared to conventional laparoscopy. [8] In the case of ventral rectopexy which is considered a difficult procedure which requires a lot of training (100 cases), robotic surgery is suggested to speed up the learning curve for surgeons (20 cases). [8] Longer operation times are usually reported with robotic surgery, but operation time is less With surgeons who are experienced in using the robotic technique. [8] The laparoscopic approach is cheaper than robotic surgery, [16] but when considering the reduced hospital stay robotic surgery may be cheaper overall. [8]

Mesh

The choice of synthetic material used to perform the rectopexy may also vary and can include nylon, Teflon, Marlex, Ivalon, Gore‐Tex, Vicryl or Dexon. There is debate regarding the best mesh material, and whether a biologic or synthetic mesh is superior. One systematic review found no significant difference between biologic or synthetic mesh with regards to the rates of mesh erosion or recurrence of prolapse. [21] However, a later systematic review reported lower rate of mesh erosion for biologic mesh (0.22%) compared to synthetic mesh (1.87%). [23]

Usually one strip of mesh is placed, but sometimes two are used. [7] The meshes are 15, 17 or 20 cm long. [7] Tackers (Protack), titanium screw tacks, or sutures (absorbably or non-absorbable) are used to fix the mesh to the sacral promontory. [7] Absorbable or non-absorbable sutures (Ethibond, prolypropylene), or 4mm titanium staples are used to fix the mesh to anterior rectal wall. [7]

Postoperative instructions

After the procedure, patients are advised to avoid sex and lifting heavy weights, and to use laxatives for 6 weeks. [5] Continuing pelvic floor physical therapy may be beneficial in those cases where people had symptoms of obstructed defecation or incontinence before the procedure. [5]

Complications

According to one publication, risk of a complication occurring is 14%. [5] Another systematic review reported an average complication rate of 4.8%. [7] Complications involving the urinary tract are most common and mesh related complications are less common. [5]

Recurrence

Recurrence of the prolapse after ventral rectopexy is possible. Recurrence rates are reported as between 1.4 and 9.7% of cases. Recurrence occurs sooner and the overall rate is higher when ventral rectopexy is performed on a prolapse which has already recurred in the past (25% of cases after 5 years). Risk factors for recurrence after ventral rectopexy include old age, male gender, higher body mass index, higher Cleveland Clinic incontinence score, prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency, weak pelvic floor, [5] [7] benign joint hypermobility syndrome, [4] and excessive perineal descent associated with chronic straining. [4] Mesh of 20 cm length has lower risk of recurrence than mesh of 15–17 cm. [5] Recurrence may occur as either full thickness prolapse or mucosal prolapse. [7]

Recurrence may occur if the mesh slips from the sacral promontory. This may happen because of inadequate fixation and adherence of the mesh to the anterior rectal wall or to the sacral promontory, or incorrectly placed staples to the upper sacrum. [5] [7] Another technical reason for relapse is inadequate dissection on the anterior aspect of the rectum. [7] Recurrence can be a challenging situation for surgeons, [7] and in this case the patient is re-evaluated for 6 months to identify the reason for the recurrence. [5] A further surgical procedure to re-fix the mesh may be required. [5]

Overall risk of complications associated with the mesh have been reported as 2.5%. [14] Such complications include detachment and migration of the mesh. This complication is reported at a rate of 4.6% of cases. [5] The mesh can erode into the vagina (1.3% of cases), or into the rectum. The risk of mesh complications appears to be low regardless of what mesh material is used. [21] However, biologic mesh may have a lower risk of complications compared to synthetic mesh. [23] When suturing synthetic mesh to the rectum, the use of absorbable sutures leads to lower risk of complications compared to non-resorbable sutures. [5] When mesh erosion into the vagina occurs, a further surgical procedure is required to remove the tissue from the mesh and to close the vaginal wall over the defect. [5] Most mesh-related complications can be treated successfully. [5]

Other

At the site where the mesh is attached (lumbosacral region), vertebral discitis may occur. This is a rare but serious complication. In one case, the discitis may have been caused by the use of titanium screws. Signs and symptoms of discitis include chronic back pain and infection. Discitis is treated with intravenous antibiotics and possible removal of the mesh. [5]

Urinary-related complications include urinary tract infection, urinary retention, damage to structures like the ureter, bladder or vas deferens. [5]

Other possible complications are infection or hernia at the port site, ileus and small bowel injury. [7]

Effectiveness

The average improvement in fecal incontinence is reported as 62.5 [7] to 79.3%, [5] and the average improvement in constipation from 76.6% [7] to 71%. [5] However, these conditions may not fully resolve after the procedure. [5] Ventral rectopexy may be more effective as an initial surgical repair of a prolapse rather than treatment for a recurrent prolapse which was previously operated upon. [5]

Robotic approach versus laparoscopic approach

One systematic review comparing laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy concluded that robotic approach resulted in a longer operation time. [16] However, this may be related to lack of operator experience with the robotic platform, and it has been suggested that a surgeon who is experienced with the robotic approach can perform the operation as fast or faster than a surgeon who is experienced with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic approach resulted in a shorter stay in hospital for patients, which balanced the increased cost of the robotic surgery itself. This may be because robotic surgery is more precise and leads to less bleeding and pain after the procedure. One study showed lower scores for obstructed defecation after robotic approach. In general, both approaches showed improvement in function and quality of life, but some studies reported robotic approach as giving slightly more improvement in quality of life. Both approaches resulted in similar long term outcome and recurrence rates. The review authors concluded that robotic ventral mesh rectopexy is safe and results in at least the same outcomes as laparoscopic approach. [16]

Synthetic mesh versus biologic mesh

The most commonly used material for synthetic mesh is polypropylene. This material has a lower risk of mesh exposure compared to polyester. [19] The two most common biologic mesh products are Permacol, which is cross-linked collagen, and Biodesign, which is non-cross linked. It is not known if one type of biologic mesh is better. [19]

In 2020 another systematic review compared the use of synthetic mesh and biologic mesh in ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse or symptomatic internal rectal prolapse. [19] The review included 32 studies containing a total of 4001 cases where synthetic mesh was used and 762 where biologic mesh was used. The rate of mesh-related complications ranged from 0 to 2.4% for synthetic mesh, with a pooled incidence rate of 1%. The rate of mesh-related complications ranged from 0 and 0.7% for biologic mesh. The rate of recurrence ranged from 1.1 to 18.8% for synthetic mesh. The rate of recurrence ranged from 0 to 15.4% for biologic mesh. The reviewers stated that the risk of mesh related complications are low for both synthetic and biologic mesh, and there may a small reduction in mesh-related complications with biologic mesh. However, due to lack of sufficient high quality data for biologic mesh, they were unable to make definitive conclusions. [19]

Suture rectopexy versus mesh rectopexy

One systematic review compared laparoscopic suture rectopexy with laparoscopic mesh rectopexy in the treatment of full-thickness rectal prolapse (external rectal prolapse, complete rectal prolapse). Compared to suture rectopexy, mesh rectopexy had lower rate of recurrence and longer operation time. There were no differences in degree of improvement of constipation, incontinence, bleeding during the surgery, length of stay in hospital, and overall rate of complications after the surgery. [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fecal incontinence</span> Inability to refrain from defecation

Fecal incontinence (FI), or in some forms, encopresis, is a lack of control over defecation, leading to involuntary loss of bowel contents — including flatus (gas), liquid stool elements and mucus, or solid feces. FI is a sign or a symptom, not a diagnosis. Incontinence can result from different causes and might occur with either constipation or diarrhea. Continence is maintained by several interrelated factors, including the anal sampling mechanism, and incontinence usually results from a deficiency of multiple mechanisms. The most common causes are thought to be immediate or delayed damage from childbirth, complications from prior anorectal surgery, altered bowel habits. An estimated 2.2% of community-dwelling adults are affected. However, reported prevalence figures vary. A prevalence of 8.39% among non-institutionalized U.S adults between 2005 and 2010 has been reported, and among institutionalized elders figures come close to 50%.

In medicine, prolapse is a condition in which organs fall down or slip out of place. It is used for organs protruding through the vagina, rectum, or for the misalignment of the valves of the heart. A spinal disc herniation is also sometimes called "disc prolapse". Prolapse means "to fall out of place", from the Latin prolabi meaning "to fall out".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hysterectomy</span> Surgical removal of the uterus

Hysterectomy is the surgical removal of the uterus and cervix. Supracervical hysterectomy refers to removal of the uterus while the cervix is spared. These procedures may also involve removal of the ovaries (oophorectomy), fallopian tubes (salpingectomy), and other surrounding structures. The term “partial” or “total” hysterectomy are lay-terms that incorrectly describe the addition or omission of oophorectomy at the time of hysterectomy. These procedures are usually performed by a gynecologist. Removal of the uterus renders the patient unable to bear children and has surgical risks as well as long-term effects, so the surgery is normally recommended only when other treatment options are not available or have failed. It is the second most commonly performed gynecological surgical procedure, after cesarean section, in the United States. Nearly 68 percent were performed for conditions such as endometriosis, irregular bleeding, and uterine fibroids. It is expected that the frequency of hysterectomies for non-malignant indications will continue to fall given the development of alternative treatment options.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rectal prolapse</span> Protrusion of the walls of the rectum outside the body

A rectal prolapse occurs when walls of the rectum have prolapsed to such a degree that they protrude out of the anus and are visible outside the body. However, most researchers agree that there are 3 to 5 different types of rectal prolapse, depending on whether the prolapsed section is visible externally, and whether the full or only partial thickness of the rectal wall is involved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rectocele</span> Bulging of the rectum into the vaginal wall

In gynecology, a rectocele or posterior vaginal wall prolapse results when the rectum bulges (herniates) into the vagina. Two common causes of this defect are childbirth and hysterectomy. Rectocele also tends to occur with other forms of pelvic organ prolapse, such as enterocele, sigmoidocele and cystocele.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colorectal surgery</span> Field in medicine for disabilities in the rectum

Colorectal surgery is a field in medicine dealing with disorders of the rectum, anus, and colon. The field is also known as proctology, but this term is now used infrequently within medicine and is most often employed to identify practices relating to the anus and rectum in particular. The word proctology is derived from the Greek words πρωκτός proktos, meaning "anus" or "hindparts", and -λογία -logia, meaning "science" or "study".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cystocele</span> Protrusion of the bladder into the vagina

The cystocele, also known as a prolapsed bladder, is a medical condition in which a woman's bladder bulges into her vagina. Some may have no symptoms. Others may have trouble starting urination, urinary incontinence, or frequent urination. Complications may include recurrent urinary tract infections and urinary retention. Cystocele and a prolapsed urethra often occur together and is called a cystourethrocele. Cystocele can negatively affect quality of life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pelvic organ prolapse</span> Descent of the pelvic organs from their normal positions

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is characterized by descent of pelvic organs from their normal positions into the vagina. In women, the condition usually occurs when the pelvic floor collapses after gynecological cancer treatment, childbirth or heavy lifting. Injury incurred to fascia membranes and other connective structures can result in cystocele, rectocele or both. Treatment can involve dietary and lifestyle changes, physical therapy, or surgery.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vaginectomy</span> Surgical removal of the vagina

Vaginectomy is a surgery to remove all or part of the vagina. It is one form of treatment for individuals with vaginal cancer or rectal cancer that is used to remove tissue with cancerous cells. It can also be used in gender-affirming surgery. Some people born with a vagina who identify as trans men or as nonbinary may choose vaginectomy in conjunction with other surgeries to make the clitoris more penis-like (metoidioplasty), construct of a full-size penis (phalloplasty), or create a relatively smooth, featureless genital area.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stress incontinence</span> Form of urinary incontinence from an inadequate closure of the bladder

Stress incontinence, also known as stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or effort incontinence is a form of urinary incontinence. It is due to inadequate closure of the bladder outlet by the urethral sphincter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uterine prolapse</span> Medical condition

Uterine prolapse is a form of pelvic organ prolapse in which the uterus and a portion of the upper vagina protrude into the vaginal canal and, in severe cases, through the opening of the vagina. It is most often caused by injury or damage to structures that hold the uterus in place within the pelvic cavity. Symptoms may include vaginal fullness, pain with sexual intercourse, difficulty urinating, and urinary incontinence. Risk factors include older age, pregnancy, vaginal childbirth, obesity, chronic constipation, and chronic cough. Prevalence, based on physical exam alone, is estimated to be approximately 14%.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is a standard surgical technique for treatment of rectal cancer, first described in 1982 by Professor Bill Heald at the UK's Basingstoke District Hospital. It is a precise dissection of the mesorectal envelope comprising rectum containing the tumour together with all the surrounding fatty tissue and the sheet of tissue that contains lymph nodes and blood vessels. Dissection is along the avascular alveolar plane between the presacral and mesorectal fascia, described as holy plane. Dissection along this plane facilitates a straightforward dissection and preserves the sacral vessels and hypogastric nerves and is a sphincter-sparing resection and decreases permanent stoma rates. It is possible to rejoin the two ends of the colon; however, most patients require a temporary ileostomy pouch to bypass the colon, allowing it to heal with less risk of infection, perforation or leakage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defecography</span> Visualisation of the mechanics of a patients defecation

Defecography is a type of medical radiological imaging in which the mechanics of a patient's defecation are visualized in real time using a fluoroscope. The anatomy and function of the anorectum and pelvic floor can be dynamically studied at various stages during defecation.

An enterocele is a herniation of a peritoneum-lined sac containing small intestine through the pelvic floor, between the rectum and the vagina. Enterocele is significantly more common in females, especially after hysterectomy.

Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome or SRUS is a chronic disorder of the rectal mucosa. It commonly occurs with varying degrees of rectal prolapse. The condition is thought to be caused by different factors, such as long term constipation, straining during defecation, and dyssynergic defecation. Treatment is by normalization of bowel habits, biofeedback, and other conservative measures. In more severe cases various surgical procedures may be indicated. The condition is relatively rare, affecting approximately 1 in 100,000 people per year. It affects mainly adults aged 30–50. Females are affected slightly more often than males. The disorder can be confused clinically with rectal cancer or other conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, even when a biopsy is done.

Obstructed defecation syndrome is a major cause of functional constipation, of which it is considered a subtype. It is characterized by difficult and/or incomplete emptying of the rectum with or without an actual reduction in the number of bowel movements per week. Normal definitions of functional constipation include infrequent bowel movements and hard stools. In contrast, ODS may occur with frequent bowel movements and even with soft stools, and the colonic transit time may be normal, but delayed in the rectum and sigmoid colon.

Sigmoidocele is a medical condition in which a herniation of peritoneum containing loops of redundant sigmoid colon descends (prolapses) into the rectouterine pouch, between the rectum and the vagina. This can obstruct the rectum and cause obstructed defecation syndrome.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Surgical mesh</span> Material used in surgery

Surgical mesh is a medical implant made of loosely woven mesh, which is used in surgery as either a permanent or temporary structural support for organs and other tissues. Surgical mesh can be made from both inorganic and biological materials and is used in a variety of surgeries, although hernia repair is the most common application. It can also be used for reconstructive work, such as in pelvic organ prolapse or to repair physical defects created by extensive resections or traumatic tissue loss.

Transvaginal mesh, also known as vaginal mesh implant, is a net-like surgical tool that is used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) among female patients. The surgical mesh is placed transvaginally to reconstruct weakened pelvic muscle walls and to support the urethra or bladder.

A rectal stricture is a chronic and abnormal narrowing or constriction of the lumen of the rectum which presents a partial or complete obstruction to the movement of bowel contents. A rectal stricture is located deeper inside the body compared to an anal stricture. Sometimes other terms with wider meaning are used, such as anorectal stricture, colorectal stricture or rectosigmoid stricture.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Steele, SR; Maykel, JA; Wexner, SD, eds. (2020). Clinical Decision Making in Colorectal Surgery (2nd ed.). Springer Cham. pp. 75, 221, 224–226, 230–233. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65942-8. ISBN   978-3-319-65942-8.
  2. 1 2 3 Herold A, Lehur PA, Matzel KE, O'Connell PR (2017). European Manual of Medicine: Coloproctology (Second ed.). Berlin, Germany. ISBN   978-3-662-53210-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. 1 2 3 Schlachta, CM; Sylla, P, eds. (2018). Current Common Dilemmas in Colorectal Surgery. Springer Nature. pp. 171, 174. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70117-2. ISBN   978-3-319-70117-2.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mercer-Jones, MA; D'Hoore, A; Dixon, AR; Lehur, P; Lindsey, I; Mellgren, A; Stevenson, AR (February 2014). "Consensus on ventral rectopexy: report of a panel of experts". Colorectal Disease. 16 (2): 82–8. doi:10.1111/codi.12415. PMID   24034860.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Loh, KC; Umanskiy, K (January 2021). "Ventral Rectopexy". Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery. 34 (1): 62–68. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1714288. PMC   7843944 . PMID   33536851.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Koimtzis, G; Stefanopoulos, L; Geropoulos, G; Chalklin, CG; Karniadakis, I; Alawad, AA; Alexandrou, V; Tteralli, N; Carrington-Windo, E; Papacharalampous, A; Psarras, K (28 February 2024). "Mesh Rectopexy or Resection Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse; Is There a Gold Standard Method: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis". Journal of Clinical Medicine. 13 (5): 1363. doi: 10.3390/jcm13051363 . PMC   10933911 . PMID   38592257.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Emile, SH; Elfeki, H; Shalaby, M; Sakr, A; Sileri, P; Wexner, SD (August 2019). "Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of the predictors for recurrence". Surgical Endoscopy. 33 (8): 2444–2455. doi:10.1007/s00464-019-06803-0. PMID   31041515.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Formisano, G; Ferraro, L; Salaj, A; Giuratrabocchetta, S; Pisani Ceretti, A; Opocher, E; Bianchi, PP (23 July 2021). "Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment". Journal of Personalized Medicine. 11 (8): 706. doi: 10.3390/jpm11080706 . PMC   8399170 . PMID   34442349.
  9. 1 2 3 Clark S (22 June 2018). Colorectal Surgery: A Companion to Specialist Surgical Practice (6th ed.). Edinburgh: Elsevier. ISBN   978-0-7020-7243-7.
  10. ↑ Docimo, L; Gualtieri, G; Gambardella, C; Brusciano, L (10 October 2022). Docimo, L; Brusciano, L (eds.). Anal Incontinence: Clinical Management and Surgical Techniques. Springer Nature. pp. 159, 193. ISBN   978-3-031-08392-1.
  11. ↑ Loygue, J; Huguier, M; Malafosse, M; Biotois, H (November 1971). "Complete prolapse of the rectum. A report on 140 cases treated by rectopexy". The British Journal of Surgery. 58 (11): 847–8. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800581113. PMID   4942022.
  12. ↑ Loygue, J; Nordlinger, B; Cunci, O; Malafosse, M; Huguet, C; Parc, R (June 1984). "Rectopexy to the promontory for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Report of 257 cases". Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. 27 (6): 356–9. doi:10.1007/BF02552998. PMID   6376001.
  13. ↑ D'Hoore, A; Cadoni, R; Penninckx, F (21 October 2004). "Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse". British Journal of Surgery. 91 (11): 1500–1505. doi:10.1002/bjs.4779. PMID   15499644.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mercer-Jones, MA; Brown, SR; Knowles, CH; Williams, AB (October 2020). "Position statement by the Pelvic Floor Society on behalf of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland on the use of mesh in ventral mesh rectopexy". Colorectal Disease. 22 (10): 1429–1435. doi:10.1111/codi.13893. PMC   7702115 . PMID   28926174.
  15. ↑ Clark, S, ed. (2019). Colorectal surgery (6th ed.). Edinburgh London New York: Elsevier. pp. 184, 191–196. ISBN   978-0-7020-7243-7.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Flynn, J; Larach, JT; Kong, JCH; Warrier, SK; Heriot, A (August 2021). "Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis". International Journal of Colorectal Disease. 36 (8): 1621–1631. doi:10.1007/s00384-021-03904-y. PMID   33718972.
  17. 1 2 3 4 Maher, C; Feiner, B; Baessler, K; Christmann-Schmid, C; Haya, N; Marjoribanks, J (9 February 2016). "Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2 (2): CD012079. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012079. PMC   6489145 . PMID   26858090.
  18. ↑ Yeung, E; Baessler, K; Christmann-Schmid, C; Haya, N; Chen, Z; Wallace, SA; Mowat, A; Maher, C (13 March 2024). "Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2024 (3): CD012079. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012079.pub2. PMC  10936147. PMID   38477494.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 van der Schans, EM; Boom, MA; El Moumni, M; Verheijen, PM; Broeders, IAMJ; Consten, ECJ (February 2022). "Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Techniques in Coloproctology. 26 (2): 85–98. doi:10.1007/s10151-021-02534-4. PMC   8763765 . PMID   34812970.
  20. ↑ Gouvas, N; Georgiou, PA; Agalianos, C; Tan, E; Tekkis, P; Dervenis, C; Xynos, E (February 2015). "Ventral colporectopexy for overt rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review". Colorectal Disease. 17 (2): O34-46. doi:10.1111/codi.12751. PMID   25186920.
  21. 1 2 3 Smart, NJ; Pathak, S; Boorman, P; Daniels, IR (June 2013). "Synthetic or biological mesh use in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy--a systematic review". Colorectal Disease. 15 (6): 650–4. doi:10.1111/codi.12219. PMID   23517144.
  22. ↑ Felt-Bersma, RJ; Cuesta, MA (March 2001). "Rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, rectocele, and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome". Gastroenterology Clinics of North America. 30 (1): 199–222. doi:10.1016/s0889-8553(05)70174-6. PMID   11394031.
  23. 1 2 3 4 Balla, A; Quaresima, S; Smolarek, S; Shalaby, M; Missori, G; Sileri, P (April 2017). "Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review". Annals of Coloproctology. 33 (2): 46–51. doi:10.3393/ac.2017.33.2.46. PMC   5426201 . PMID   28503515.
  24. ↑ Kumari, M; MadhuBabu, M; Vaidya, H; Mital, K; Pandya, B (June 2024). "Outcomes of Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". Cureus. 16 (6): e61631. doi: 10.7759/cureus.61631 . PMC   11223666 . PMID   38966481.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.