Redo ventral rectopexy : is it worthwhile?
|Author:||Laitakari, K. E.1,2; Mäkelä‑Kaikkonen, J. K.3,4; Kairaluoma, M.5;|
1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
2Medical Research Centre Oulu, Centre of Surgical Research, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
3Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
4Medical Research Centre Oulu, Centre of Surgical Research, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
5Department of Surgery, Keski-Suomi Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Finland
6Department of Surgery, Keski-Suomi Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Finland
7Department of Surgery, Päijät-Häme Central Hospital, Lahti, Finland
|Online Access:||PDF Full Text (PDF, 0.6 MB)|
|Persistent link:|| http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe202103319059
|Publish Date:|| 2021-03-31
Background: Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely used surgical treatment for posterior pelvic organ prolapse; however, evidence of the utility of revisional surgery is lacking. Our aim was to assess the technical details, safety and outcomes of redo minimally invasive VMR for patients with external rectal prolapse (ERP) recurrence or relapsed symptoms of internal rectal prolapse (IRP).
Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with recurrent ERP or symptomatic IRP who underwent redo minimally invasive VMR between 2011 and 2016. The study was conducted at three hospitals in Finland. Data collected retrospectively included patient demographics, in addition to perioperative and short-term postoperative findings. At follow-up, all living patients were sent a questionnaire concerning postoperative disease-related symptoms and quality of life.
Results: A total of 43 redo minimally invasive VMR were performed during the study period. The indication for reoperation was recurrent ERP in 22 patients and relapsed symptoms of IRP in 21 patients. In most operations (62.8%), the previously used mesh was left in situ and a new one was placed. Ten (23.3%) patients experienced complications, including 2 (4.7%) mesh-related complications. The recurrence rate was 4.5% for ERP. Three patients out of 43 were reoperated on for various reasons. One patient required postoperative laparoscopic hematoma evacuation. Patients operated on for recurrent ERP seemed to benefit more from the reoperation.
Conclusions: Minimally invasive redo VMR appears to be a safe and effective procedure for treating posterior pelvic floor dysfunction with acceptable recurrence and reoperation rates.
Techniques in coloproctology
|Pages:||299 - 307|
|Type of Publication:||
A1 Journal article – refereed
|Field of Science:||
3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
Open access funding provided by University of Oulu including Oulu University Hospital. Funding was received from State research funding, The University of Oulu Scholarship Foundation, and The Mary and Georg C. Ehrnrooth Foundation.
© The Author(s) 2020. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.