Resection rectopexy as part of the multidisciplinary approach in the management of complex pelvic floor disorders
Author:
Kalev Georgi1, Marquardt Christoph1, Schmerer Marten1, Ulrich Anja1, Heyl Wolfgang2, Schiedeck Thomas1
Affiliation:
1. Department of General, Visceral, Thoracic and Pediatric Surgery , Ludwigsburg Hospital , Ludwigsburg , Germany 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Ludwigsburg Hospital , Ludwigsburg , Germany
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Pelvic floor disorders are frequently caused by an organ prolapse involving multiple pelvic floor compartments. In such cases, a multidisciplinary strategy for diagnostic work-up and therapy is required.
Methods
All patients who underwent transabdominal rectopexy/resection rectopexy alone or in combination with simultaneous gynecological pelvic floor reconstruction at our institution between 01/2006 and 12/2021 were included in this retrospective study. The study aimed to evaluate the functional outcome and postoperative complications.
Results
Two hundred and eighty seven patients were assigned to one of the following groups: PG1 – patient group one: after resection rectopexy (n=141); PG2 – after ventral rectopexy (n=8); PG3 – after combined resection rectopexy and sacro (cervico)colpopexy (n=62); PG4 – after combined resection rectopexy and trans-vaginal pelvic floor repair (n=76). The duration of follow-up was 14 months for PG1 (median, IQR 37 months), 11 months for PG2 (mean, SD 9 months), 7 months for PG 3 (median, IQR 33 months), and 12 months for PG 4 (median, IQR 51 Months). The surgical procedure resulted in improvement of symptoms related to obstructed defecation in 56.4 % (22/39) of the patients in PG1, 25 % in PG2 (1/4), 62.5 % (20/32) in PG3, and 71.8 % (28/39) in PG4. “De novo” constipation was reported by 2.4 % (2/141) of patients from PG1. Improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms was reported by 69 % (40/58) of patients in PG1, 100 % in PG2 (2/2), 93.1 % (27/29) in PG3, and 87.2 % (34/39) in PG4. The recurrence rate for external rectal prolapse was 7.1 % in PG1, 50 % in PG2 (1/2), 2.7 % in PG3, and 6.3 % in PG4. A significant difference in terms of severe morbidity (grade ≥ IIIb) and mortality could not be determined between the non-interdisciplinary (PG1 with PG2) and interdisciplinary surgery (PG3 with PG4) (p=0.88, p=0.499).
Conclusions
Based on our results, we can assume that combined surgery is as feasible as rectal surgery alone. In our study, combined interventions were effective and not associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Reference27 articles.
1. Barber, MD, Maher, C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:1783–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9. 2. Iglesia, CB, Smithling, KR. Pelvic organ prolapse. Am Fam Physician 2017;96:179–85. 3. Bordeianou, L, Hicks, CW, Kaiser, AM, Alavi, K, Sudan, R, Wise, PE. Rectal prolapse: an overview of clinical features, diagnosis, and patient-specific management strategies. J Gastrointest Surg 2014;18:1059–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2427-7. 4. Matzel, KE, Bittorf, B. Stuhlinkontinenz. In: Herold, A, Schiedeck, T, editors. (Hrsg) manual der Koloproktologie. Band 1. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH; 2019:S 179 p. 5. Mearin, F, Lacy, BE, Chang, L, Chey, WD, Lembo, AJ, Simren, M, et al.. Bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2016;S0016–5085:00222–5. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.031.
|
|