Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy are widely accepted surgical options for the treatment of rectal prolapse, however reports on long-term recurrence rates and functional outcomes are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We compared quality of life, long-term functional outcomes and prolapse recurrence after resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively collected rectal prolapse surgery database. SETTINGS: Patients who underwent resection rectopexy or ventral mesh rectopexy at our center between 2009 and 2016 were included. PATIENTS: Two hundred twenty patients were included, of which 208 (94%) female; 85 (39%) underwent resection rectopexy, 135 (61%) ventral mesh rectopexy. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE: Prolapse recurrence. RESULTS: The resection rectopexy group was younger (median 52 vs 60 years old, p = 0.02) and had more open procedures (20% vs 9%, p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 110 (IQR 94 – 146) months for resection rectopexy and 113 (87 – 137) for ventral mesh rectopexy, recurrences occurred in 21 (26%) in the resection rectopexy and 50 (39%) in the ventral mesh rectopexy group ( p = 0.041). Median time to recurrence was 44 (18 – 80) months in the resection rectopexy group and 28.5 (11 – 52.5) in the ventral mesh rectopexy group ( p = 0.14). There were no differences in the recurrence rate for primary prolapses in resection rectopexy vs ventral mesh rectopexy. Recurrence rate for re-do prolapses was higher in the ventral mesh rectopexy group 63% at 10 years, versus 25% in resection rectopexy group ( p = 0.006). Functional outcomes were similar between the two groups. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective review, recall bias. CONCLUSION: Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes after resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy were comparable. Ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with a higher prolapse recurrence rate after recurrent rectal prolapse repair. See Video Abstract .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spivak et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: