Clinical and functional results of abdominal rectopexy with absorbable mesh-graft for treatment of complete rectal prolapse. Lateral ligament division during rectopexy causes constipation but prevents recurrence: results of a prospective randomized study. Abdominal resection rectopexy with pelvic floor repair versus perineal rectosigmoidectomy and pelvic floor repair for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Effects of rectal mobilization and lateral ligaments division on colonic and anorectal function. Prospective randomized trial of Ivalon sponge versus sutured rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Comparison of laparoscopic rectopexy with open technique in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse: clinical and functional results. Abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy vs. rectopexy alone for rectal prolapse: a prospective, randomized study. A prospective randomized study of abdominal rectopexy with and without sigmoidectomy in rectal prolapse. Comparison of polyglycolic acid and polypropylene mesh for rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse. Impact of new technologies on the clinical and functional outcome of Altemeier's procedure: a randomized, controlled trial. Economic impact of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy.
To report the long term results of abdominal rectopexy in patients with complete rectal prolapse.
                Ongoing prospective randomised study.
                Department of Surgery, Westfälische Wilhelms-University, Münster.
                47 patients with complete rectal prolapse operated on between 1982 and 1989.
                Abdominal rectopexy with absorbable mesh made of either polyglycolic acid (n = 17) or polyglactine 910 (n = 30).
                Postoperative complications and late results at a mean of 50.5 (range 2-102) months after operation.
                Thirteen patients (28%) developed postoperative complications, most of them minor; there was one enterocutaneous fistula. Thirty five patients (74%) were available for late follow up. There were no case of recurrent prolapse and 5 (14%) had developed mucosal prolapse. Of the 22 patients who had been incontinent before operation, 8 had become totally continent and 6 partially continent Overall continence improved in 18 (51%) of the 35 patients. Three patients who were continent before operation had become incontinent.
                Absorbable mesh is a suitable material for abdominal rectopexy. Denervation of the rectum during rectopexy has been suggested as a reason for postoperative constipation. Bowel symptoms and anorectal function have been examined in a prospective randomized study of rectopexy with (n = 14) or without (n = 12) division of the lateral ligaments. Incontinence improved in both groups of patients. Division of the lateral ligaments increased the number of patients with constipation (three before operation, ten after operation, P less than 0.01). Mean and canal pressures were higher after operation in all patients. Rectal electrical sensory threshold increased significantly in those in whom the ligaments had been divided (preoperative 27.6 mA versus postoperative 56.7 mA; P less than 0.01) but not in those in whom they were preserved (39.0 versus 34.9 mA; P greater than 0.05). Prolapse recurred in six patients who did not undergo division of the lateral ligaments, but in none of the group in whom the ligaments were divided. A randomized trial was performed to compare abdominal resection rectopexy and pelvic floor repair (n = 10) with perineal rectosigmoidectomy and pelvic floor repair (n = 10) in elderly female patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and faecal incontinence. There were no recurrences of full-thickness prolapse following resection rectopexy but one after rectosigmoidectomy. Continence to liquid and solid stool was achieved in nine patients, with faecal soiling reported in only two, after resection rectopexy and in eight, with soiling in six, following rectosigmoidectomy. The median (range) frequency of defaecation was only 1 (1-3) per day following resection rectopexy compared with 3 (1-6) per day after rectosigmoidectomy. There was an increase in the mean(s.d.) maximum resting pressure after resection rectopexy (19.3(15.28) cmH2O) compared with a reduction following rectosigmoidectomy (-3.4(13.75) cmH2O) (P = 0.003). Mean(s.d.) compliance was also greater after resection rectopexy than following rectosigmoidectomy (3.9(0.75) versus 2.2(0.78) ml/cmH2O, P < 0.001). Abdominal resection rectopexy gives better functional and physiological results than perineal rectosigmoidectomy. Colonic and anorectal function are altered after posterior rectopexy. The aim of this randomized, prospective study was to evaluate the effects of rectal mobilization and division of the lateral ligaments on colonic and anorectal function.
                Posterior rectopexy was performed in 18 patients with complete rectal prolapse. Anal manometry and measurement of rectal compliance, total and segmental colonic transit time, constipation score, and defecation frequency were performed preoperatively and three months postoperatively. Ligaments were divided in ten patients.
                Mean preoperative total transit time was similar between the two patient groups and doubled postoperatively (P = 0.03). Mean postoperative segmental transit time increased by a factor of 1.7 in segments I (ascending colon) and II (descending colon) and by a factor of 2.3 in segment III (rectosigmoid). The same pattern was found in both groups. Mean resting pressure decreased after division of the lateral ligaments and increased after preservation. Mean rectal compliance decreased after division of the ligaments and increased when they were preserved. Mean postoperative constipation score differed little from the preoperative score. Mean defecation frequency was decreased in the group with the ligaments preserved and increased in the group with the ligaments divided. None of the effects of rectal mobilization or division of the lateral ligaments on anorectal function reached statistical significance.
                Rectal mobilization had a statistically significant effect on colonic function. Total and segmental colonic transit times doubled. The effects on anorectal function were not significant. Division of the lateral ligaments did not significantly influence postoperative functional outcome. Ivalon sponge rectopexy is a safe reliable procedure in the management of rectal prolapse. Sutured rectopexy is simpler and avoids the use of foreign material. Sutured rectopexy is mandatory if synchronous resection is to be considered. Sixty-three patients (62 women) with full-thickness rectal prolapse were entered into a prospective randomized trial of Ivalon sponge rectopexy (31 patients) versus sutured rectopexy (32). Twenty patients (32 per cent) had coexistent incontinence (ten in each group). The operation was performed in the standard manner with a sutured rectangle of sponge or sutures alone placed along the length of the sacrum. Postoperative morbidity occurred in nine patients (14 per cent) of whom three underwent a sutured procedure and six Ivalon rectopexy: wound infection in three, chest infection in two, urinary tract infection in two and thromboembolism in two. There were no deaths within 30 days. At a median follow-up of 47 months prolapse had recurred in two patients (3 per cent), one in each group, 14 (22 per cent) suffered from incontinence (of whom five had undergone a sutured procedure), while 25 (40 per cent) had developed constipation (of whom 15 had received Ivalon rectopexy). The medium-term results of rectopexy by suture alone are equivalent to those obtained following the conventional Ivalon procedure. These data suggest that Ivalon rectopexy could now be abandoned. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the functional and clinical results of laparoscopic rectopexy with those of the open technique in two similar groups of patients with complete rectal prolapse and fecal incontinence. Between November 1992 and June 1997, 21 patients underwent abdominal rectopexy. Thirteen patients (group A: 12 women and 1 man, mean age 52.9 years, range 28-70) and 8 patients (group B: 8 women, mean age 58.2 years, range 20-76) were submitted to Well's rectopexy by the open technique and the laparoscopic approach, respectively, without division of the lateral rectal ligaments. Assignment to each group was done randomly. Before the operation, a detailed clinical history was taken, and patients were studied with inspection and digital examination of the anorectum, proctosigmoidoscopy, determination of pancolonic transit time, dynamic defecography, anorectal manometry, and anal electromyography. After the operation, all patients underwent perineal physiotherapy, external electric stimulation, and perineal biofeedback. The mean follow-up time was 29.5 months (range 6-54) in group A and 25.7 months (range 8-45) in group B. Values were compared by chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon tests, as appropriate; differences were considered significant at p < 0.05. In both groups, dyschezia and fecal incontinence improved significantly (p < 0.05) after the operation. Basal pressure of anal sphincter, squeezing pressure, and rectoanal reflex improved without significance, whereas anoperineal pain was not significantly reduced. In group B, the postoperative hospital stay was shorter than in group A, with a marked reduction of costs. Laparoscopic Well's rectopexy has the same clinical and functional results as the open technique, with a shorter postoperative hospital stay and lower costs. A prospective, randomized study comparing abdominal rectopexy and sigmoid resection (Group I; n = 15) with polyglycolic acid mesh rectopexy without sigmoidectomy (Group II; n = 15) for complete rectal prolapse was carried out. One patient in Group I died of myocardial infarction, one patient in Group II had a small bowel obstruction and two patients in Group I an asymptomatic stricture of the anastomosis. Otherwise a safe and efficient control of the prolapse was achieved in both groups. Eleven (73%) patients in Group I and 12 (80%) patients in Group II were more or less incontinent before surgery. After correction of prolapse incontinence improved in eight and ten patients in Groups I and II, but became slightly worse in one patient in Group II. A similar rise in anal pressures was measured in both groups after surgery. Constipation disappeared in three and seven patients in Groups I and II six months after surgery, but five additional patients in Group II became severely constipated and colectomy had to be performed in one of them. Surgery caused no significant change in colonic transit times even though increased transit times were measured in each group six months postoperatively. Sigmoid resection in conjunction with rectopexy does not seem to increase operative morbidity but tends to diminish postoperative constipation possibly by causing less outlet obstruction. Eighteen patients with full-thickness prolapse of the rectum were randomized to rectopexy alone (group 1) or with sigmoidectomy (group 2). Three months postoperatively, seven patients in group 1 and two in group 2 complained of severe constipation. One patient in group 1 and three patients in group 2 remained incontinent. The results of colonic marker studies showed a significant increase in the number of markers at day 5 for those in group 1 (preoperative, 7.7 +/- 2.6; postoperative, 14.6 +/- 2.2; t test, p less than 00.1) but no significant increase in group 2 (preoperative, 4.6 +/- 2.2; postoperative 6.8 +/- 2.3; t test, p less than 0.01). No significant changes or differences between the groups were seen in the anorectal angle on videoproctogram. The results of anorectal physiologic studies done postoperatively showed no differences between the groups in maximum resting pressure, sphincter length or saline solution infusion test; however, the patients in group 1 had a significantly greater rectal compliance (group 1, 0.24 +/- 0.02 millimeters mercury per milliliter; group 2, 0.1 +/- 0.02 millimeters mercury per milliliter; p less than 00.1). This may occur because the redundant loop of sigmoid colon causes hold-up of intestinal content and kinking at the junction between the sigmoid colon and the rectum. To compare the efficacy of absorbable and non-absorbable mesh for rectal fixation in abdominal rectopexy.
                Prospective open study.
                University hospital, Israel.
                37 consecutive patients with complete rectal prolapse.
                Posterior abdominal rectopexy with non-absorbable mesh (Polypropylene, Prolene, Ethicon Ltd) in 17 patients and with absorbable mesh (Polyglycolic acid, Dexon, Davis & Geck) in 20.
                There was no operative mortality, and there were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of postoperative complications. Mean (SD) follow up was 3.6(0.5) years and 3.8(0.7) years in the Dexon and Prolene groups, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative performance indices based on the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index were similar in both groups.
                Dexon mesh may be as effective as Prolene mesh in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse. A performance index seems to be a useful tool for evaluating the outcome of patients after repair of complete rectal prolapse. A randomized study was performed to assess whether new technologies offer advantages over the conventional technique on the clinical and functional outcome of patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and fecal incontinence, submitted to Altemeier's procedure with levatorplasty.
                Between January 1999 and December 2003, 58 patients (55 females; mean age, 70.9 +/- 11.3 years) with full-thickness rectal prolapse were evaluated with continence score, colonoscopy, anorectal manometry, anal electromyography, and sacral reflex latency; 40 of them were selected and randomly assigned to two groups: 20 patients (Group 1; 19 females, 73.4 +/- 10.4 years) were submitted to a conventional operation with monopolar electrocautery and handsewn anastomosis, and 20 (Group 2; 18 females, 71.5 +/- 12.2 years) using harmonic scalpel and circular stapler. Patients were followed up with clinical examination, anorectal manometry, and anal electromyography, with mean follow-up 29.3 +/- 8.5 and 27.5 +/- 9.2 months in Groups 1 and 2, respectively.
                Operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were significantly reduced in Group 2 (P < 0.001), whereas no differences were found in pain score, time to return to normal activity, morbidity, and mortality. Complications were two (10 percent) stenosis in Group 1. Fecal continence score significantly improved in both groups (P < 0.01), whereas anorectal manometry and neurophysiologic data were not significantly modified by the operation. Recurrence rates were 15 and 10 percent in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P= not significant).
                The clinical and functional long-term results of perineal rectosigmoidectomy with levatorplasty are not influenced by surgical instruments and type of coloanal anastomosis. The clinical relevance of the short-term results in high-risk patients should be specifically investigated. The introduction of new laparoscopic techniques has important cost implications. The aim of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic rectopexy with that of open abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse.
                A cost effectiveness study was conducted alongside a randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy.
                The efficacy trial demonstrated significant subjective and objective differences in favour of the laparoscopic technique. The mean operating time was 51 min longer for laparoscopic rectopexy than for the open procedure. Laparoscopic disposables incurred a mean cost of pound 291 per patient. The mean duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter for the laparoscopic group (P = 0.001). Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with an overall mean cost saving of pound 357 (95 per cent confidence interval pound 164 to pound 592; P = 0.042) per patient.
                Laparoscopic rectopexy is associated with superior clinical outcomes and is cheaper than the open approach.
                Copyright 2004 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.
The small sample size of included trials together with their methodological weaknesses severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence with which to define optimum surgical treatment for rectal prolapse: the results of one such trial are awaited.