Top

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

Published in:

01-12-2014 | Original Article

Case-matched series of a non-cross-linked biologic versus non-absorbable mesh in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

Authors: James W. Ogilvie Jr., Andrew R. L. Stevenson, Michael Powar

Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Issue 12/2014

Abstract

Purpose

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is an emerging technique for selected patients with rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome. Data are insufficient to conclude which type of mesh affords the greatest benefit. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of LVR using a non-cross-linked biologic versus a permanent mesh.

Methods

Twenty nine cases of LVR with permanent mesh were matched based on age and surgical indication with an equal number of patients using biologic mesh. Cases were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Symptom resolution, patient satisfaction and recurrence of prolapse were measured among those who underwent LVR with either a biologic (Biodesign®, Cook Medical) or polypropylene mesh.

Results

Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, surgical indication and primary symptoms were not different between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 15.4 months, all patients reported being either completely or partially satisfied. Rates of complete or partial symptom resolution (p = 0.26) or satisfaction (p = 0.27) did not differ between groups. After LVR, similar rates of additional procedures were performed in the biologic (21 %) and the permanent (28 %) mesh group. Among patients with full-thickness prolapse (n = 33), there were five cases (15 %) of recurrence, one in the biologic group and four in the permanent mesh group (p = 0.37). There were no mesh-related complications in either group.

Conclusions

LVR using a non-cross-linked biologic mesh appears to have comparable rates of symptom improvement and patient satisfaction in the short term. Longer follow-up will be required to determine if prolapse recurrence depends on mesh type.

D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91:1500–1505PubMedCrossRef

Collinson R, Wijffels N, Cunningham C, Lindsay I (2010) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse: short-term functional results. Colorectal Dis 12:97–104PubMedCrossRef

Slawik S, Soulsby R, Carter H, Payne H, Dixon AR (2008) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction. Colorectal Dis 10:138–143PubMed

Wong M, Meurette G, Abet E, Podevin J, Lehur PA (2011) Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for complex rectocele. Colorectal Dis 13:1019–1023PubMedCrossRef

Evans C, Ong E, Jones OM, Cunningham C, Lindsey (2014) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is effective for solitary rectal ulcer syndrome when associated with rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis 16:O112–O116PubMedCrossRef

Samaranayake CB, Luo C, Plank AW, Merrie AEH, Plank LD, Bissett IP (2010) Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception. Colorectal Dis 12:504–512PubMedCrossRef

Boons P, Collinson R, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2010) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse improves constipation and avoids de novo constipation. Colorectal Dis 12:526–532PubMedCrossRef

Solomon MJ, Young CJ, Eyers AA, Roberts RA (2002) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 89:35–39PubMedCrossRef

Wong MTC, Abet E, Rigaud J, Frampas E, Lehur PA, Meurette G (2011) Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for complex rectocoele: impact on anorectal and sexual function. Colorectal Dis 13:e320–e326PubMedCrossRef

10.

D’Hoore A, Penninckx F (2008) Laparoscopic ventral rectocolpopexy for complex recotgenital prolapse. In: Altomare D, Pucciani F (eds) Rectal prolapse. Springer-Verlag, Milan, pp 145–152CrossRef

11.

Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CQ, Lukacz ES (2011) Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 22:205–212PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

12.

Faucheron JL, Voirin D, Riboud R, Waroquet PA, Noel J (2012) Laparoscopic anterior rectopexy to the promontory for full-thickness rectal prolapse in 175 consecutive patients: short- and long-term follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 55:660–665PubMedCrossRef

13.

Bako A, Dhar R (2009) Review of synthetic mesh-related complications in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:103–111PubMedCrossRef

14.

Hiles M, Record Ritchie RD, Altizer AM (2009) Are biologic grafts effective for hernia repair? A systematic review of the literature. Surg Innov 16:26–37PubMedCrossRef

15.

Karas JR, Uranues S, Altomare DF, Sokmen S, Krivokapic Z, Hoch J, Bartha I, Bergamaschi R (2011) No rectopexy versus rectopexy following rectal mobilization for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 54:29–34PubMedCrossRef

16.

Sileri P, Franceschilli L, de Luca E, Lazzaro S, Angelucci GP, Fiaschetti V, Pasecenic C, Gaspari AL (2012) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse using biological mesh: postoperative and short-term functional results. J Gastrointest Surg 16:622–628PubMedCrossRef

17.

Wahed S, Ahmad M, Mohiuddin K, Katory M, Mercer-Jones M (2011) Short-term results for laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biological mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Colorectal Dis 14:1242–1247CrossRef

18.

Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, Gazzotti F, D’Alessandro L, Pinna AD (2009) Inguinal hernia repair with porcine small intestine submucosa: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein’s repair with polypropylene mesh versus Surgisis Inguinal Hernia Matrix. Am J Surg 198:303–312PubMedCrossRef

19.

Siracusano S, Ciciliato S, Lampropoulou N, Cucchi A, Visalli F, Talamini R (2011) Porcine small intestinal submucosa implant in pubovaginal sling procedure on 48 consecutive patients: long-term results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 158:350–353PubMedCrossRef

20.

Hammond TM, Chin-Aleong J, Navsaria H, Williams NS (2008) Human in vivo cellular response to a cross-linked acellular collagen implant. Br J Surg 2008(95):438–446CrossRef

21.

Petter-Puchner AH, Fortelny RH, Walder N, Mittermayr R, Ohlinger W, van Griensven M, Redl H (2008) Adverse effects associated with the use of porcine cross-linked collagen implants in an experimental model of incisional hernia repair. J Surg Res 145:105–110PubMedCrossRef

22.

Powar MP, Ogilvie JW, Stevenson ARL (2013) Day-case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: an achievable reality. Colorectal Dis 15:700–706PubMedCrossRef

23.

Decher F (1960) Ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse. Helv Chir Acta 27:240–246

24.

Deucher F, Streuli HK (1968) Experiences in ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse. Langenbecks Arch Chir 322:445–449PubMedCrossRef

25.

Gosselink MP, Adusumilli S, Gorissen KJ, Fourie S, Tuynman JB, Jones OM, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2013) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for fecal incontinence associated with high-grade internal rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 56:1409–1414PubMedCrossRef

26.

Cunin D, Siproudhis L, Desfourneaux V, Bouteloup PY, Meunier B, Ropert A, Berkelmans I, Bretagne JF, Boudjema K, Bouguen G (2013) Incontinence in full-thickness rectal prolapse: low level of improvement after laparoscopic rectopexy. Colorectal Dis 15:470–476PubMedCrossRef

27.

Kariv Y, Delaney CP, Casillas S, Hammel J, Nocero J, Bast J, Brady K, Fazio VW, Senagore AJ (2006) Long-term outcome after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal prolapse: a case–control study. Surg Endosc 20:35–42PubMedCrossRef

28.

Hool GR, Hull TL, Fazio VW (1997) Surgical treatment of recurrent complete rectal prolapse: a thirty-year experience. Dis Colon Rectum 40:270–272PubMedCrossRef

29.

Watts AM, Thompson MR (2000) Evaluation of Delorme’s procedure as a treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 87:218–222PubMedCrossRef

30.

Ashari LH, Lumley JW, Stevenson AR, Stitz RW (2005) Laparoscopically-assisted resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse: ten years’ experience. Dis Colon Rectum 48:982–987PubMedCrossRef

31.

von Papen M, Ashari LH, Lumley JW, Stevenson AR, Stitz RW (2007) Functional results of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for symptomatic rectal intussusception. Dis Colon Rectum 50:50–55CrossRef

32.

Smart NJ, Pathak S, Boorman P, Daniels IR (2013) Synthetic or biological mesh use in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy—a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 15(6):650–654PubMedCrossRef

33.

DiGiuro G, Ignjatovic D, Brogger J, Bergamaschi R (2006) How accurate are published recurrence rates after rectal prolapse surgery? A meta-analysis of individual patient data. Am J Surg 191:773–778PubMedCrossRef

34.

Senapati A, Gray RG, Middleton LJ, Harding J, Hills RK, Armitage NC, Buckley L, Northover JM, PROSPER Collaborative Group (2013) PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis 15:858–868PubMedCrossRef

35.

Enríquez-Navascués JM, Elósegui JL, Apeztegui FJ, Placer C, Borda N, Irazusta M, Múgica JA, Murgoitio J (2009) Ventral rectal sacropexy (colpo-perineal) in the treatment of rectal and rectogenital prolapse. Cir Esp 86:283–289PubMedCrossRef

36.

Deeken CR, Melman L, Jenkins ED, Greco SC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD (2011) Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 212:880–888PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

37.

Melman L, Jenkins ED, Hamilton NA, Bender LC, Brodt MD, Deeken CR, Greco SC, Frisella MM, Matthews BD (2011) Early biocompatibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic meshes in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Hernia 15:157–164PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

38.

Peeters E, van Barneveld KW, Schreinemacher MH, De Hertogh G, Ozog Y, Bouvy N, Miserez M (2013) One-year outcome of biological and synthetic bioabsorbable meshes for augmentation of large abdominal wall defects in a rabbit model. J Surg Res 180:274–283PubMedCrossRef

39.

Daniel G. Schultz M. FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/publichealthnotifications/ucm061976.htm; Accessed July 3, 2012

Title: Case-matched series of a non-cross-linked biologic versus non-absorbable mesh in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy
Authors: James W. Ogilvie Jr.
Andrew R. L. Stevenson
Michael Powar
Publication date: 01-12-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease / Issue 12/2014
Print ISSN: 0179-1958
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1262
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-2016-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Case-matched series of a non-cross-linked biologic versus non-absorbable mesh in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2014

Impact of perineal Crohn’s disease on utilization of care in the absence of modifiable predictors of treatment failure

Gabapentin significantly decreases posthemorrhoidectomy pain: a prospective study

Mucosal Schwann cell hamartoma: just benign or more?

Risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection

Bleeding pseudoaneurysm of the internal iliac artery after extended resection for advanced rectal cancer: report of two cases

Mesenteric fibromatosis