Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

Randall, Jonathan; Smyth, E.; McCarthy, Kathryn; Dixon, A. R.

doi:10.1111/codi.12741

Cited by 50 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirty-eight of those 46 studies were excluded due surgery other than ventral rectopexy having been performed, postoperative complications not having been reported, or mesh-related erosion having not been observed among the complications; thus, eight studies were deemed eligible for inclusion (Fig. 1) [1213141516171819]. All studies reported synthetic mesh-related erosion [1213141516171819], and 1 study [19] reported both synthetic and biological mesh-related erosion (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1) [1213141516171819]. All studies reported synthetic mesh-related erosion [1213141516171819], and 1 study [19] reported both synthetic and biological mesh-related erosion (Table 1). Six studies were prospective, none of which was a randomized clinical trial [121314151619], 1 study was retrospective [17], and 1 study was a case report (Table 1) [18].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Polypropylene mesh was used in 2,085 cases, polyester in 850 cases, titanium-coated polypropylene in 160 cases, porcine dermal collagen in 309 cases, and porcine small-intestinal submucosa in 130 cases [12131415161719]. In 1 study, the synthetic mesh type was not specified [18], and in the study of Consten et al [17], 421 patients underwent LVR with placement of a prolene or a polyester mesh, but the exact number for each mesh type was not specified (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis review reports the incidence of mesh-related erosion after ventral mesh rectopexy to determine whether any difference exists in the erosion rate between synthetic and biological mesh.MethodsA systematic search of the MEDLINE and the Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2004 and 2015. The search strategy capture terms were laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy, robotic ventral rectopexy, and robotic anterior rectopexy.ResultsEight studies (3,956 patients) were included in this review. Of those patients, 3,517 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) using synthetic mesh and 439 using biological mesh. Sixty-six erosions were observed with synthetic mesh (26 rectal, 32 vaginal, 8 recto-vaginal fistulae) and one (perineal erosion) with biological mesh. The synthetic and the biological mesh-related erosion rates were 1.87% and 0.22%, respectively. The time between rectopexy and diagnosis of mesh erosion ranged from 1.7 to 124 months. No mesh-related mortalities were reported.ConclusionThe incidence of mesh-related erosion after LVR is low and is more common after the placement of synthetic mesh. The use of biological mesh for LVR seems to be a safer option; however, large, multicenter, randomized, control trials with long follow-ups are required if a definitive answer is to be obtained.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the data interpreted within this study, therefore, include patients who have been reported previously by the individual centers. [3][4][5][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] the indication for patients undergoing lVR was at the discretion of individual center practice. however, 4 of the 5 centers included within this study were involved in the creation of a published consensus for lVR with standardized indications for surgery, 18 and, as such, practice was consistent among all of the centers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multicenter Collaboration to Assess the Safety of Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy

Evans

Stevenson

Sileri

et al. 2015

Diseases of the Colon &Amp; Rectum

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is now considered safe and effective and results of large case series from tertiary centres [3][4][5] and systematic reviews [6,7] support this view. To our knowledge so far results of LVMR from a district general hospital in the UK has not been published.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Safety and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy for Rectal Prolapse and Obstructed Defecation: Analysis of First 20 Cases at a UK District General Hospital

Tennakoon¹,

Farook²

2016

Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journal of Surgery IntroductionLaparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is gaining wider acceptance amongst colorectal surgeons as the technique that can address symptoms of both external and internal rectal prolapse. It also allows correction of any associated rectocele, enterocele and posterior vaginal wall prolapse as well as vault prolapse. The learning curve for LVMR is unknown and there is no consensus on case selection. The aim of this study is to share our results to show that LVMR can be learnt and safely performed by experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons in district general hospitals with short term results similar to that of establish centres. MethodologyPrior to start of this retrospective study UK National Health Service Health Research Authority website was consulted and NHS Research Ethics Committee approval was not required. The procedures followed were in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy was started at our institution in January 2011. All patients presented with obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) and rectal prolapse from January 2011 to January 2015 are included in this analysis. Patients presenting to the out patients department with symptoms of difficulty in evacuation, sense of incomplete evacuation, pelleted stools, frequent visits to the toilet, perineal, vaginal or anal digitation, incontinence and pelvic pain were clinically diagnosed as having obstructed defecation. All with such symptoms were investigated with anorectal physiology, defecation proctography, colon transit studies, colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy as appropriate. Patients with obvious rectal prolapse underwent either colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy as indicated.Fluoroscopic defecography was performed with vaginal, oral and bladder contrast. Defecography, anorectal physiology and symptoms were discussed in the fortnightly pelvic floor MDT which consists of two colorectal surgeons (both authors), one radiologist, the radiographer who performs defecography, one urogynaecologist and the colorectal nurse specialist who performs anorectal physiology and biofeedback. Fluoroscopy films were reviewed by all MDT members and intussusception was graded according to oxford prolapse grade [1] (Grade 1-High recto rectal intussusception, Grade 2-Low recto-rectal intussusception, Grade 3-High recto-anal intussusception, Grade 4-Low recto-anal intussusception, Grade 5-Complete rectal prolapse). Evacuation time, number of attempts at evacuation and speed of opening of the anal canal were considered as subjective global markers of evacuation efficiency. In the case of rectocele barium trapping in the rectocele was considered significant. All patients with ODS then underwent maximal medical therapy as well as biofeedback. Since 2012 patients are offered trans anal irrigation as a form of conservative treatment if they do not respond to maximal medical therapy. Patients with high grade intussusception (Grade 3 and 4) and reduced AbstractIntroduction: ...

show abstract

Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

Abstract: LVMR for ERP is associated with low morbidity and recurrence and a long-term improvement in function and QOL. LVMR achieves the same benefits after a failed perineal procedure.

Cited by 50 publications

References 16 publications

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

A Multicenter Collaboration to Assess the Safety of Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy

Safety and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy for Rectal Prolapse and Obstructed Defecation: Analysis of First 20 Cases at a UK District General Hospital

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About