Transperineal rectocele repair with biomesh: updating of a tertiary refer center prospective study
- 144 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSimple rectocele Transperineal repair Biomesh Outcomes
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.
- 12.Kahn MA, Stanton SI (1997) Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:882–886Google Scholar
- 15.Hanson JM, Aspin B, Spalding LJ, Varma JS (2004) Transperineal repair of rectocele using porcine collagen. Color Dis 6(suppl 1):36Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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