International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 33, Issue 11, pp 1583–1588 | Cite as

Transperineal rectocele repair with biomesh: updating of a tertiary refer center prospective study

  • Giorgio LisiEmail author
  • M. Campanelli
  • S. Grande
  • M. Grande
  • D. Mascagni
  • G. Milito
Original Article



Symptomatic rectocele results in obstructed defecation and constipation. Surgical repair may provide symptomatic relief. A variety of surgical procedures have been used in the rectocele repair to enhance anatomical and functional results and to improve long-term outcomes.


In this prospective study, we treated 25 selected women suffering from simple symptomatic rectocele with transperineal repair using porcine dermal acellular collagen matrix Biomesh (Permacol®). Watson score and SF-36 questionnaire were used to evaluate postoperative outcomes and quality of life.


Follow-up ranged from 12 to 24 months, the mean total Watson score was significantly lower than the preoperative score (P < 0.001), and every patient has improved functional outcomes. There were no major intraoperative or postoperative complications. Two cases of urinary infection and 4 patients delayed wound healing were reported. Those patients who were sexually active prior to surgery have not experienced problems with sexual function or dyspareunia.


Despite lack of comparative study in literature, rectocele repair with Permacol® by the transperineal approach seems an effective and safe procedure that avoids some of the complications associated with synthetic mesh use.


Simple rectocele Transperineal repair Biomesh Outcomes 


Author contribution

G.L. was responsible for manuscript writing, study design, data collection, and interpretation.

M.C. was responsible for editing and drafting the manuscript.

S.G. and M.G. and D.M. were responsible for study design and performed the specimen analyses.

G.M. performed surgery and were responsible for data interpretation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Dietz HP, Steensma AB (2006) The role of childbirth in the aetiology of rectocele. BJOG 113:264–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Capps WF (1975) Rectoplasty and perineoplasty for the symptomatic rectocele: a report of fifty cases. Dis Colon Rectum 18:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sarles JC, Arnaud A, Selezneff I, Olivier S (1989) Endorectal repair of rectocele. Int J Color Dis 4:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neal Ellis C (2005) Treatment of obstructed defecation. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 18(2):85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smart NJ, Mercer-Jones MA (2007 Sep) Functional outcome after transperineal rectocele repair with porcine dermal collagen implant. Dis Colon Rectum 50(9):1422–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milito G, Cadeddu F, Grande M, Selvaggio I, Farinon AM (2009) Advances in treatment of obstructed defecation: biomesh transperineal repair. Dis Colon Rectum 52:2051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Veglia A, Petrolino M, De Fazio M, Sallustio P (2002) Combined perineal and endorectal repair of rectocele by circular stapler: a novel surgical technique. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1549–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maher C, Baessler K (2006) Surgical management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse: an evidence-based literature review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:84–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ayabaca SM, Zbar AP, Pescatori M (2002) Anal continence after rectocele repair. Dis Colon Rectum 45:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zbar AP, Lienemann A, Fritsch H, Beer-Gabel M, Pescatori M (2003) Rectocele: pathogenesis and surgical management. Int J Color Dis 18(5):369–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American College of Gastroenterology Constipation Task Force (2005) An evidence-based approach to the management of chronic constipation in North America. Am J Gastroenterol 100(Suppl 1):S1–S4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kahn MA, Stanton SI (1997) Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:882–886Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khubchandani IT, Clancey JP, Rosen L, Riether RD, Stasik JJ (1997) Endorectal repair rectocele revisited. Br J Surg 84:89–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stojkovic SG, Balfour L, Burke D, Finan PJ, Sagar PM (2003) Does the need to self-digitate or the presence of a large or nonemptying rectocoele on proctography influence the outcome of transanal rectocoele repair? Color Dis 5:169–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanson JM, Aspin B, Spalding LJ, Varma JS (2004) Transperineal repair of rectocele using porcine collagen. Color Dis 6(suppl 1):36Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altman D, Zetterstrom J, Lopez A et al (2005) Functional and anatomic outcome after transvaginal rectocele repair using collagen mesh: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1233–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Watson SJ, Loder PB, Halligan S, Bartram CI, Kamm MA, Phillips RK (1996) Transperineal repair of symptomatic ectocele with Marlex mesh: a clinical, physiological and radiologic assessment of treatment. J Am Coll Surg 183:257–261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pescatori M, Milito G, Fiorino M, Cadeddu F (2009) Complications and reinterventions after surgery for obstructed defecation. Int J Color Dis 24:951–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kahn MA, Stanton SL, Kumar D, Fox SD (1999) Posterior colporrhaphy is superior to the transanal repair for treatment of posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 18:70–71Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen K, Laitinen J, Oksala J, Heinonen P (2003) Transanal or vaginal approach to rectocele repair: results of a prospective randomized study. Neurourol Urodyn 22:547–548Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arnold MW, Stewart WR, Aguilar PS (1990) Rectocele repair. Four years’ experience. Dis Colon Rectum 33:684–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen KM, Laitinen J, Oksala J, Heinonen PK (2004) Transanal or vaginal approach to rectocele repair: a prospective, randomized pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1636–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S (2004) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004014Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fischer F, Farke S, Schwandner O, Bruch HP, Schiedeck T (2005) Functional results after transvaginal, transperineal and transrectal correction of a symptomatic rectocele. Zentralbl Chir 130:400–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Milley PS, Nichols DH (1969) A correlative investigation of the human rectovaginal septum. Anat Rec 163:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Richardson AC (1993) The rectovaginal septum revisited: its relationship to rectocele and its importance in rectocele repair. Clin Obstet Gynecol 36:976–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Porter WE, Steele A, Walsh P, Kohli N, Karram MM (1999) The anatomic and functional outcomes of defect-specific rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:1353–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abramov Y, Gandhi S, Goldberg R et al (2004) Does discrete site-specific defect repair carry better objective and subjective outcomes than standard posterior colporrhaphy? Neurourol Urodyn 23:437–439Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR (2000) Sexual function and vaginal anatomy in women before and after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:1610–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singh K, Cortes E, Reid WM (2003) Evaluation of the fascial technique for surgical repair of isolated posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 101:320–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maher CF, Qatawneh A, Baessler K, Schluter P (2004) Midline rectovaginal fascial plication for repair of rectocele and obstructed defecation (abstract 166). Obstet Gynecol 104:685–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abramov Y, Kwon C, Gandhi S, Goldberg R, Sand PK (2003) Long-term anatomic outcome of discrete site-specific defect repair versus standard posterior colporrhaphy for the correction of advanced rectocele: a 1 year follow-up analysis. Neurourol Urodyn 22:520–521Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW, Winkler HA, Tomezsko J, Culligan PJ, Goldberg R (2001) Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1357–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dwyer PL, O’Reilly BA (2004) Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse Atrium polypropylene mesh. BJOG 111:831–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Salvatore S, Soligo M, Meschia M, Luppino G, Piffarotti P, Arcarci V (2002) Prosthetic surgery for genital prolapse: functional outcome. Neurourol Urodyn 21:296–297Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zimmermann EF, Hayes RS, Daniels IR, Smart NJ, Warwick AM (2017 Oct) Transperineal rectocele repair: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg 87(10):773–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leventoğlu S, Menteş BB, Akin M, Karen M, Karamercan A, Oğuz M (2007 Dec) Transperineal rectocele repair with polyglycolic acid mesh: a case series. Dis Colon Rectum 50:2085–2092CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giorgio Lisi
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Campanelli
    • 2
  • S. Grande
    • 3
  • M. Grande
    • 4
  • D. Mascagni
    • 5
  • G. Milito
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of General and Pancreatic SurgeryUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly
  3. 3.University of MessinaMessinaItaly
  4. 4.Department of General and Emergency SurgeryUniversity of Tor VergataRomeItaly
  5. 5.Department of Surgical SciencesSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations