Incidence and surgical treatment of synthetic mesh-related infectious complications after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

Borie, F.; Coste, T; Bigourdan, Jean-Marc; Guillon, F.

doi:10.1007/s10151-016-1538-z

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in accordance with other published results on LVMR using biological mesh [3,[19][20][21][22]. In contrast, synthetic mesh-related morbidity after LVMR has been reported as 1.1% (polypropylene), 3.3% (polyester) [23], 2.4% (various) [19] and 4.6% (Marlex or polypropylene) (10-year Kaplan-Meier estimate) [1]. Whilst the differences between biologicaland synthetic-mesh-related morbidity may not seem large it is the potential revisional surgery that may be required that is important.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Short‐ and long‐term clinical and patient‐reported outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy using biological mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective cohort study of 224 consecutive patients

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Short‐ and long‐term clinical and patient‐reported outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy using biological mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective cohort study of 224 consecutive patients

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This led to seven extra papers [ 16 , 19 – 21 , 23 , 33 , 34 ] deemed suitable for inclusion. Nonetheless, 10 papers [ 11 , 50 – 58 ] still had to be excluded due to non-response.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reasons for concern are the risk of mesh exposure and infection, fistula formation and chronic pelvic pain/dyspareunia. Although these complications seem rare, with incidences being described up to 3.6%, their severity and long-term sequelae can have such a significant impact on the quality of life, that there is reason to look for alternatives such as biologic mesh [10][11][12]. With biologic mesh, the risk of mesh-related complications is assumed to be lower due to the process of degradation and eventual resorption of the graft and regeneration of host tissue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for rectal prolapse. Both synthetic and biologic mesh are used. No consensus exists on the preferred type of mesh material. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish an overview of the current literature on mesh-related complications and recurrence after VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh to aid evidence-based decision making in preferred mesh material. Methods A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane was performed (from inception until September 2020). Studies evaluating patients who underwent VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh were eligible. The MINORS score was used for quality assessment. Results Thirty-two studies were eligible after qualitative assessment. Eleven studies reported on mesh-related complications including 4001 patients treated with synthetic mesh and 762 treated with biologic mesh. The incidence of mesh-related complications ranged between 0 and 2.4% after synthetic versus 0–0.7% after biologic VMR. Synthetic mesh studies showed a pooled incidence of mesh-related complications of 1.0% (95% CI 0.5–1.7). Data of biologic mesh studies could not be pooled. Twenty-nine studies reported on the risk of recurrence in 2371 synthetic mesh patients and 602 biologic mesh patients. The risk of recurrence varied between 1.1 and 18.8% for synthetic VMR versus 0–15.4% for biologic VMR. Cumulative incidence of recurrence was found to be 6.1% (95% CI 4.3–8.1) and 5.8% (95% CI 2.9–9.6), respectively. The clinical and statistical heterogeneity was high. Conclusions No definitive conclusions on preferred mesh type can be made due to the quality of the included studies with high heterogeneity amongst them.

show abstract

“…Among the different techniques available for fixing rectoceles or intussusception, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy seems to have the less risk of postoperative incontinence. However, it requires expert knowledge of the technique, its results are not widely reproducible, and mesh complications may lead surgeons to abandon the technique in the future [27,28]. The Delorme and the Internal Delorme procedures have been widely used for rectal prolapse and for low take off prolapse or intussusception respectively, as causes of ODS symptoms.…”

Section: Incontinence Due To Rectal Evacuatory Disordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment and Treatment of Obstructed Defecation Syndrome

Linardoutsos¹

2020

Current Topics in Faecal Incontinence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fecal incontinence is not a rare clinical pathology in general population. Although it is more common in geriatric population, fecal incontinence should not be underestimated in younger genders. Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) has become a well-known syndrome with different clinical etiology and symptoms. The main symptom is inability of proper rectal emptying, but it can also overlap with symptoms of incontinence. In this chapter, we emphasize on the assessment of ODS, focusing on the coexistence and clinical relation to fecal incontinence. Anorectal studies are of great importance for the evaluation of the symptoms. Biofeedback is the key to the proper management of patients with ODS, showing significant improvement in incontinence as well. Surgical treatment of anatomic deformities that cause ODS is also important.

show abstract

Incidence and surgical treatment of synthetic mesh-related infectious complications after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

Abstract: When a prosthesis-related infection or erosion occurs, treatment consists in the surgical removal of the prosthesis by laparoscopy/and/or a transanal procedure. Functional symptoms do not routinely recur after prosthesis removal.

Cited by 16 publications

References 22 publications

Short‐ and long‐term clinical and patient‐reported outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy using biological mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective cohort study of 224 consecutive patients

Short‐ and long‐term clinical and patient‐reported outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy using biological mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective cohort study of 224 consecutive patients

Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Assessment and Treatment of Obstructed Defecation Syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About