Cargando…

Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rectal prolapse is often repaired laparoscopically, frequently with the use of reinforcement material. Both synthetic and biologically derived materials reduce recurrence rate compared to primary suture repair. Synthetic mesh introduces potential complications such as mesh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mehta, Aradhana, Afshar, Rami, Warner, David L., Gardner, Amy, Ackerman, Ellen, Brandt, Jared, Sasse, Kent C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5371515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28400698
http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00106
_version_ 1782518435453861888
author Mehta, Aradhana
Afshar, Rami
Warner, David L.
Gardner, Amy
Ackerman, Ellen
Brandt, Jared
Sasse, Kent C.
author_facet Mehta, Aradhana
Afshar, Rami
Warner, David L.
Gardner, Amy
Ackerman, Ellen
Brandt, Jared
Sasse, Kent C.
author_sort Mehta, Aradhana
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rectal prolapse is often repaired laparoscopically, frequently with the use of reinforcement material. Both synthetic and biologically derived materials reduce recurrence rate compared to primary suture repair. Synthetic mesh introduces potential complications such as mesh erosion, fibrosis, and infection. Urinary bladder matrix (UBM) represents a biologically derived material for reinforcement of rectal prolapse repair with the potential to improve durability without risks of synthetic materials. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness, durability, and functional result of laparoscopic rectopexy using urinary bladder matrix xenograft reinforcement at three years follow up. METHODS: The 20 cases presented describe rectal prolapse repair by means of laparoscopic rectopexy with presacral UBM reinforcement. Patients were followed up for an average of 3 years and assessed with interviews, physical examination, manometry, and the fecal incontinence severity index (FISI). RESULTS: Each repair was completed laparoscopically. UBM exhibited favorable handling characteristics when sutured to the sacrum and the lateral rectal walls. One patient underwent laparoscopic drainage of a postoperative abscess; no other complications occurred. In 3 years of follow-up, there have been no full-thickness recurrences, erosions, reoperations, or long-term complications. Two patients exhibited a small degree of mucosal prolapse on follow-up physical examination that did not require surgery. Three-year FISI scores averaged 8 (range, 0–33 of a possible 61), indicating low fecal incontinence symptomatology. Follow-up anorectal manometry was performed in 9 patients, showing mixed results. CONCLUSION: Surgeons may safely use laparoscopic rectopexy with UBM reinforcement for repair of rectal prolapses. In this series, repairs with UBM grafts have been durable at 3-year follow-up and may be an alternative to synthetic mesh reinforcement of rectal prolapse repairs. Future studies may compare the advantages and cost-effectiveness of reinforcement materials for rectal prolapse repair.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5371515
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53715152017-04-11 Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement Mehta, Aradhana Afshar, Rami Warner, David L. Gardner, Amy Ackerman, Ellen Brandt, Jared Sasse, Kent C. JSLS Scientific Paper BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rectal prolapse is often repaired laparoscopically, frequently with the use of reinforcement material. Both synthetic and biologically derived materials reduce recurrence rate compared to primary suture repair. Synthetic mesh introduces potential complications such as mesh erosion, fibrosis, and infection. Urinary bladder matrix (UBM) represents a biologically derived material for reinforcement of rectal prolapse repair with the potential to improve durability without risks of synthetic materials. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness, durability, and functional result of laparoscopic rectopexy using urinary bladder matrix xenograft reinforcement at three years follow up. METHODS: The 20 cases presented describe rectal prolapse repair by means of laparoscopic rectopexy with presacral UBM reinforcement. Patients were followed up for an average of 3 years and assessed with interviews, physical examination, manometry, and the fecal incontinence severity index (FISI). RESULTS: Each repair was completed laparoscopically. UBM exhibited favorable handling characteristics when sutured to the sacrum and the lateral rectal walls. One patient underwent laparoscopic drainage of a postoperative abscess; no other complications occurred. In 3 years of follow-up, there have been no full-thickness recurrences, erosions, reoperations, or long-term complications. Two patients exhibited a small degree of mucosal prolapse on follow-up physical examination that did not require surgery. Three-year FISI scores averaged 8 (range, 0–33 of a possible 61), indicating low fecal incontinence symptomatology. Follow-up anorectal manometry was performed in 9 patients, showing mixed results. CONCLUSION: Surgeons may safely use laparoscopic rectopexy with UBM reinforcement for repair of rectal prolapses. In this series, repairs with UBM grafts have been durable at 3-year follow-up and may be an alternative to synthetic mesh reinforcement of rectal prolapse repairs. Future studies may compare the advantages and cost-effectiveness of reinforcement materials for rectal prolapse repair. Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5371515/ /pubmed/28400698 http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00106 Text en © 2017 by JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/), which permits for noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not altered in any way.
spellingShingle Scientific Paper
Mehta, Aradhana
Afshar, Rami
Warner, David L.
Gardner, Amy
Ackerman, Ellen
Brandt, Jared
Sasse, Kent C.
Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement
title Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement
title_full Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement
title_fullStr Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement
title_short Laparoscopic Rectopexy with Urinary Bladder Xenograft Reinforcement
title_sort laparoscopic rectopexy with urinary bladder xenograft reinforcement
topic Scientific Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5371515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28400698
http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00106
work_keys_str_mv AT mehtaaradhana laparoscopicrectopexywithurinarybladderxenograftreinforcement
AT afsharrami laparoscopicrectopexywithurinarybladderxenograftreinforcement
AT warnerdavidl laparoscopicrectopexywithurinarybladderxenograftreinforcement
AT gardneramy laparoscopicrectopexywithurinarybladderxenograftreinforcement
AT ackermanellen laparoscopicrectopexywithurinarybladderxenograftreinforcement
AT brandtjared laparoscopicrectopexywithurinarybladderxenograftreinforcement
AT sassekentc laparoscopicrectopexywithurinarybladderxenograftreinforcement