Cargando…

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients

PURPOSE: Obstructed defecation syndrome represents 50–60% of patients with symptoms of constipation. We aimed to compare the two frequently performed surgical methods, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair, for this condition in terms of functional and surgical outcomes....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Balci, Bengi, Leventoglu, Sezai, Osmanov, Igbal, Erkan, Beyza, Irkilata, Yasemin, Mentes, Bulent
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10675873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38001430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02206-0
_version_ 1785149865710321664
author Balci, Bengi
Leventoglu, Sezai
Osmanov, Igbal
Erkan, Beyza
Irkilata, Yasemin
Mentes, Bulent
author_facet Balci, Bengi
Leventoglu, Sezai
Osmanov, Igbal
Erkan, Beyza
Irkilata, Yasemin
Mentes, Bulent
author_sort Balci, Bengi
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Obstructed defecation syndrome represents 50–60% of patients with symptoms of constipation. We aimed to compare the two frequently performed surgical methods, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair, for this condition in terms of functional and surgical outcomes. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 131 female patients who were diagnosed with obstructed defecation syndrome, attributed to rectocele with or without rectal intussusception, enterocele, hysterocele or cystocele, and who underwent either laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy or transperineal mesh repair. Patients were evaluated for surgical outcomes based on the operative time, the length of hospital stay, operative complications, using prospectively designed charts. Functional outcome was assessed by using the Initial Measurement of Patient-Reported Pelvic Floor Complaints Tool. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients diagnosed with complex rectocele underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, and 80 patients diagnosed with simple rectocele underwent transperineal mesh repair. Mean age was found to be 50.35 ± 13.51 years, and mean parity 2.14 ± 1.47. Obstructed defecation symptoms significantly improved in both study groups, as measured by the Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory, Constipation Severity Instrument and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms scores. Minor postoperative complications including wound dehiscence (n = 3) and wound infection (n = 2) occurred in the transperineal mesh repair group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair are efficient and comparable techniques in terms of improvement in constipation symptoms related to obstructed defecation syndrome. A selective distribution of patients with or without multicompartmental prolapse to one of the treatment arms might be the preferred strategy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-023-02206-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10675873
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106758732023-11-24 Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients Balci, Bengi Leventoglu, Sezai Osmanov, Igbal Erkan, Beyza Irkilata, Yasemin Mentes, Bulent BMC Surg Research PURPOSE: Obstructed defecation syndrome represents 50–60% of patients with symptoms of constipation. We aimed to compare the two frequently performed surgical methods, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair, for this condition in terms of functional and surgical outcomes. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 131 female patients who were diagnosed with obstructed defecation syndrome, attributed to rectocele with or without rectal intussusception, enterocele, hysterocele or cystocele, and who underwent either laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy or transperineal mesh repair. Patients were evaluated for surgical outcomes based on the operative time, the length of hospital stay, operative complications, using prospectively designed charts. Functional outcome was assessed by using the Initial Measurement of Patient-Reported Pelvic Floor Complaints Tool. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients diagnosed with complex rectocele underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, and 80 patients diagnosed with simple rectocele underwent transperineal mesh repair. Mean age was found to be 50.35 ± 13.51 years, and mean parity 2.14 ± 1.47. Obstructed defecation symptoms significantly improved in both study groups, as measured by the Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory, Constipation Severity Instrument and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms scores. Minor postoperative complications including wound dehiscence (n = 3) and wound infection (n = 2) occurred in the transperineal mesh repair group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair are efficient and comparable techniques in terms of improvement in constipation symptoms related to obstructed defecation syndrome. A selective distribution of patients with or without multicompartmental prolapse to one of the treatment arms might be the preferred strategy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-023-02206-0. BioMed Central 2023-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10675873/ /pubmed/38001430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02206-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access 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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Balci, Bengi
Leventoglu, Sezai
Osmanov, Igbal
Erkan, Beyza
Irkilata, Yasemin
Mentes, Bulent
Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients
title Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients
title_full Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients
title_fullStr Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients
title_short Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients
title_sort laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10675873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38001430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02206-0
work_keys_str_mv AT balcibengi laparoscopicventralmeshrectopexyvstransperinealmeshrepairforobstructeddefecationsyndromeassociatedwithrectocelecomparisonofselectivelydistributedpatients
AT leventoglusezai laparoscopicventralmeshrectopexyvstransperinealmeshrepairforobstructeddefecationsyndromeassociatedwithrectocelecomparisonofselectivelydistributedpatients
AT osmanovigbal laparoscopicventralmeshrectopexyvstransperinealmeshrepairforobstructeddefecationsyndromeassociatedwithrectocelecomparisonofselectivelydistributedpatients
AT erkanbeyza laparoscopicventralmeshrectopexyvstransperinealmeshrepairforobstructeddefecationsyndromeassociatedwithrectocelecomparisonofselectivelydistributedpatients
AT irkilatayasemin laparoscopicventralmeshrectopexyvstransperinealmeshrepairforobstructeddefecationsyndromeassociatedwithrectocelecomparisonofselectivelydistributedpatients
AT mentesbulent laparoscopicventralmeshrectopexyvstransperinealmeshrepairforobstructeddefecationsyndromeassociatedwithrectocelecomparisonofselectivelydistributedpatients