Advertisement

Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 20, Issue 11, pp 759–765 | Cite as

Incidence and surgical treatment of synthetic mesh-related infectious complications after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

  • F. BorieEmail author
  • T. Coste
  • J. M. Bigourdan
  • F. Guillon
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Prosthetic-related infection and erosion occurring after a laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) are rare complications, and their importance is often underestimated. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence rate and surgical management of these complications in LVR patients with polyester (PE) or polypropylene (PP) prostheses.

Methods

From January 2004 to June 2012, 149 patients underwent LVR with PE and 176 underwent LVR with PP. Surgical management and rate of infectious and erosive prosthesis-related complications, depending on the type of prosthesis, were described and compared. Functional results after complications were assessed.

Results

Five patients from the PE prosthesis group (3.3 %), compared with two patients from the PP prosthesis group (1.1 %), experienced prosthesis-related infection or erosion (p = 0.16). The rate of erosion alone was 3.3 % in patients with a PE prosthesis, and 0.55 % in patients with a PP prosthesis (p = 0.06). The average time until clinical diagnosis of a prosthesis-related complication was identical for both groups: 31 months (range 3–62 months). All patients underwent surgical removal of the prosthesis: For the five patients from the PE group, complete removal was performed by laparoscopy associated with a transanal procedure. For the two patients in the PP mesh group, laparoscopy was ineffective in removing the mesh which was partially removed through a subsequent transanal procedure. None of the patients had a protective stoma, and in all patients the complication had resolved 12 months after removal. Only one patient had worsening functional symptoms (fecal incontinence) after prosthesis removal.

Conclusions

When a prosthesis-related infection or erosion occurs, treatment consists in the surgical removal of the prosthesis by laparoscopy/and/or a transanal procedure. Functional symptoms do not routinely recur after prosthesis removal.

Keywords

Synthetic mesh Complications Laparoscopic Rectopexy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Kairaluoma MV, Kellokumpu IH (2005) Epidemiologic aspects of complete rectal prolapse. Scand J Surg 94:207–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’Hoore A, Penninckx F (2006) Laparoscopic ventral recto (colpo) pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Surg Endosc 20:1919–1923CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91:1500–1505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boons P, Collinson R, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2010) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse improves constipation and avoids de novo constipation. Colorectal Dis 12:526–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borie F, Bigourdan JM, Pissas MH, Guillon F (2014) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for the treatment of outlet obstruction associated with recto-anal intussusception and rectocele: a valid alternative to STARR procedure in patients with anal sphincter weakness. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol l38:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van den Esschert JW, van Geloven AA, Vermulst N, Groenedijk AG, de Wit LT, Gerhards MF (2008) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for obstructed defecation syndrome. Surg Endosc 22:2728–2732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Formijne Jonkers HA, Poierrié N, Draaisma WA, Broeders IA, Consten EC (2013) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and symptomatic rectocele: an analysis of 245 consecutive patients. Colorectal Dis 15:695–699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong MT, Abet E, Rigaud J, Lehur PA, Meurette G (2011) Minimally invasive ventral prosthesis rectopexy for complex rectocoele: impact on anorectal and sexual function. Colorectal Dis 13:e320–e326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Solomon MJ, Young CJ, Eyers AA, Roberts RA (2002) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 89:35–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Purkayastha S, Tekkis P, Athanasiou T et al (2005) A comparison of open vs. laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1930–1940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Samaranayake CB, Luo C, Plank AW, Merrie AE, Plank LD, Bissett IP (2010) Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception. Colorectal Dis 12:504–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maggiori L, Bretagnol F, Ferron M, Panis Y (2013) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective long-term evaluation of functional results and quality of life. Tech Coloproctol 17:431–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faucheron JL, Voirin D, Riboud R, Waroquet PA, Noel J (2012) Laparoscopic anterior rectopexy to the promontory for full-thickness rectal prolapse in 175 consecutive patients: short- and long-term follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 55:660–665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slawik S, Soulsby R, Carter H, Payne H, Dixon AR (2008) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction. Colorectal Dis 10:138–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Consten EC, van Iersel JJ, Verheijen PM, Broeders IA, Wolthuis AM, D’Hoore A (2015) Long-term outcome after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: an observational study of 919 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 262:742–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smart N, Pathak S, Boorman P, Daniels IR (2013) Synthetic or biological prosthesis use in laparoscopic ventral prosthesis rectopexy-a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 15:650–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans C, Stevenson AR, Sileri P et al (2015) Multicenter collaboration to assess the safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 58:799–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mercer-Jones MA, D’Hoore A, Dixon AR et al (2014) Consensus on ventral rectopexy: report of a panel of experts. Colorectal Dis 16:82–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ouaïssi M, Cresti S, Giger U et al (2010) Management of recto-vaginal fistulas after prosthetic reinforcement treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. World J Gastroenterol 16:3011–3015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tranchart H, Goasguen N, Gravié JF, Mosnier H (2013) Conservative treatment of intrarectal prosthesis migration after ventral laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:1563–1566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Badrek-Al Amoudi AH, Greenslade GL, Dixon AR (2013) How to deal with complications after laparoscopic ventral prosthesis rectopexy: lessons learnt from a tertiary referral centre. Colorectal Dis 15:707–712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Borie
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • T. Coste
    • 2
  • J. M. Bigourdan
    • 1
  • F. Guillon
    • 2
  1. 1.Hepatobiliary and Gastrointestinal SurgeryNîmes University Hospital CenterNîmesFrance
  2. 2.Gastrointestinal Surgery St Eloi University Hospital CenterMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations