Ventral rectopexy with biological mesh for recurrent disorders of the posterior pelvic organ compartment
- 14 Downloads
Recurrent prolapse of the posterior pelvic organ compartment presents a management challenge, with the best surgical procedure remaining unclear. We present functional outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) with biological mesh in patients with recurrence.
We analyzed data from 30 patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse who underwent VMR with biological mesh from August 2012 to January 2018. Data included patient demographics and intra- and postoperative findings; functional outcome as assessed by Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Score Longo (ODS), and Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS); and patient satisfaction.
CCCS, CCIS, and ODS were significantly improved at 6–12 months postoperatively and at last follow-up. Patient satisfaction (visual analog scale [VAS] 6.7 [0 to 10]), subjective symptoms (+ 3.4 [scale − 5 to + 5]), and quality of life improvement (+ 3.0 [scale from − 5 to + 5]) were high at last follow-up. The rates of morbidity and major complications were 13% and 3%, respectively. There were no mesh-related complications or deaths. Difference in type of previous surgery (abdominal or transanal/perineal) had no significant effect on results.
VMR with biological mesh is a safe and effective option for patients with recurrent posterior pelvic organ prolapse. It reduces functional symptoms, has a low complication rate, and promotes patient satisfaction.
KeywordsRecurrent rectal prolapse Recurrent posterior compartment prolapse Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy Functional outcome Biological mesh
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
K.E. Matzel is a medical adviser to Medtronic.The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Statement of human rights
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Statement on the welfare of animals
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
This study contains no information that would enable individual patient identity.
- 17.Longo A (December 2006) 3rd German-Italian experts meeting, Rome, pp 12–14Google Scholar