Advertisement

Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 985–986 | Cite as

Erosion after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy with a biological mesh

  • M. Shalaby
  • A. Matarangolo
  • I. Capuano
  • G. Petrella
  • P. SileriEmail author
Correspondence
  • 413 Downloads

Dear Sir,

Today, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is the most commonly used transabdominal surgical technique for the treatment of full-thickness rectal prolapse. High success rates, as well as low complication rates, explain the rapid spread of this approach which seems to be the ideal approach for rectocele associate with obstructed defecation syndrome, external and internal rectal prolapse, and solitary rectal ulcer.

Recent evidence suggested that mesh-related complications are uncommon for both synthetic and biological meshes; however, mesh-related erosions were found to be more commonly associated with synthetics, with the incidence reported to be 1.87% for synthetic mesh and 0.22%, for biological mesh [1].

We present a case of erosion that occurred 23 months after LVMR using a biological mesh. Briefly, a 26-year-old female underwent LVMR 7 years after a TRANSTAR performed for external full-thickness rectal prolapse. She presented with a grade V rectal prolapse according...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval has been obtained from the Ethical Committee of the Policlinico Tor Vergata Hospital in compliance with the Principals Helsinki Declaration in 1964.

Informed consent

All study participants, or their legal guardian, provided informed written consent prior to study enrollment including the possibility of future publication according to the Italian bioethics laws.

References

  1. 1.
    Balla A, Quaresima S, Smolarek S, Shalaby M, Missori G, Sileri P (2017) Synthetic versus biological mesh-related erosion after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review. Ann Coloproctol 33(2):46–51CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sileri P, Capuano I, Franceschilli L, Giorgi F, Gaspari AL (2014) Modified laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Tech Coloproctol 18(6):591–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sileri P, Shalaby M, Orlandi A (2017) Biological mesh extrusion months after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Tech Coloproctol 21(1):91–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans C, Stevenson AR, Sileri P et al (2015) A multicenter collaboration to assess the safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 58(8):799–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mercer-Jones MA, D’Hoore A, Dixon AR et al (2014) Consensus on ventral rectopexy: report of a panel of experts. Colorectal Dis 16(2):82–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Shalaby
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Matarangolo
    • 1
  • I. Capuano
    • 1
  • G. Petrella
    • 1
  • P. Sileri
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of General Surgery UOC C, Policlinico Tor VergataUniversity of Rome Tor VergataRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryUniversity of MansouraMansouraEgypt

Personalised recommendations