Skip to main content

Ventral Prosthesis Rectopexy for obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Obstructed Defecation Syndrome (ODS) is a rather complex entity concerning mainly females and causing primarily constipation. Surgical treatment in the form of Ventral Prosthesis Rectopexy (VPR) has been proposed and seems to have the best outcomes. However, the selection criteria of patients to undergo this kind of operation are not clear and the reported outcomes are mainly short-term and data on long-term outcomes is scarce. This study assesses new evidence on the efficacy of VPR for the treatment of ODS, specifically focusing on inclusion criteria for surgery and the long-term outcomes. A search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid and Cochrane databases on all studies reporting on VPR for ODS from 2000 to March 2020. No language restrictions were made. All studies on VPR were reviewed systematically. The main outcomes were intra-operative complications, conversion, procedure duration, short-term mortality and morbidity, length of stay, faecal incontinence and constipation, quality of life (QoL) score and patient satisfaction. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by three observers. Fourteen studies including 963 patients were eligible for analysis. The immediate postoperative morbidity rate was 8.9%. A significant improvement in constipation symptoms was observed in the 12-month postoperative period for ODS (p < 0.0001). Current evidence shows that VPR offers symptomatic relief to the majority of patients with ODS, improving both constipation-like symptoms and faecal incontinence for at least 1–2 years postoperatively. Some studies report on functional results after longer follow-up, showing sustainable improvement, although in a lesser extent.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Picciariello A, O’Connell PR, Hahnloser D, et al (2021) Obstructed defaecation syndrome: European consensus guidelines on the surgical management. Br J Surg Online ahead of print

  2. 2.

    Dvorkin LS, Knowles CH, Scott SM, Williams NS, Lunniss PJ (2005) Rectal intussusception: characterization of symptomatology. Dis Colon Rectum 48:824–831

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Pescatori M, Spyrou M, Pulvirenti d’Urso A (2007) A prospective evaluation of occult disorders in obstructed defecation using the ‘iceberg diagram.’ Colorectal Dis 9:452–456

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Shih DQ, Kwan LY (2007) All roads lead to Rome: update on Rome III criteria and new treatment options. Gastroenterol Rep 1:56–65

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Altomare DF, Spazzafumo L, Rinaldi M, Dodi G, Ghiselli R, Piloni V (2008) Set-up and statistical validation of a new scoring system for obstructed defaecation syndrome. Colorectal Dis 10:84–88

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hicks CW, Weinstein M, Wakamatsu M, Pulliam S, Savitt L, Bordeianou L (2013) Are rectoceles the cause or the result of obstructed defaecation syndrome? A prospective anorectal physiology study. Colorectal Dis 15:993–999

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Maglinte DD, Bartram CI, Hale DA et al (2011) Functional imaging of the pelvic floor. Radiology 258:23–39

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Beer-Gabel M, Assoulin Y, Amitai M, Bardan E (2008) A comparison of dynamic transperineal ultrasound (DTP-US) with dynamic evacuation proctography (DEP) in the diagnosis of cul de sac hernia (enterocele) in patients with evacuatory dysfunction. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:513–519

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Brusciano L, Limongelli P, Pescatori M et al (2007) Ultrasonographic patterns in patients with obstructed defaecation. Int J Colorectal Dis 22:969–977

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Piloni V, Tosi P, Vernelli M (2013) MR-defecography in obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS): technique, diagnostic criteria and grading. Tech Coloproctol 17:501–510

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Martin-Martin GP, Garcia-Armengol J, Roig-Vila JV et al (2017) Magnetic resonance defecography versus videodefecography in the study of obstructed defecation syndrome: is videodefecography still the test of choice after 50 years? Tech Coloproctol 21:795–802

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bove A, Pucciani F, Bellini M et al (2012) Consensus statement AIGO/SICCR: diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation (part I: diagnosis). World J Gastroenterol 18:1555–1564

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Christensen P, Krogh K, Buntzen S, Payandeh F, Laurberg S (2009) Long-term outcome and safety of transanal irrigation for constipation and fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 52:286–292

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Pucciani F, Reggioli M, Ringressi MN (2012) Obstructed defaecation: what is the role of rehabilitation? Colorectal Dis 14:474–479

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bove A, Bellini M, Battaglia E et al (2012) Consensus statement AIGO/SICCR diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation (part II: treatment). World J Gastroenterol 18:4994–5013

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Peticca L, Pescatori M (2002) Outlet obstruction due to anismus and rectal hyposensation: effect of biofeedback training. Colorectal Dis 4:67

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Del Popolo F, Cioli VM, Plevi T, Pescatori M (2014) Psycho-echo-biofeedback: a novel treatment for anismus–results of a prospective controlled study. Tech Coloproctol 18:895–900

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Stuto A et al (2004) Stapled transanal rectal resection for outlet obstruction: a prospective, multicenter trial. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1285–1287

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ommer A, Albrecht K, Wenger F, Walz MK (2006) Stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR): a new option in the treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391:32–37

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Madbouly KM, Abbas KS, Hussein AM (2010) Disappointing long-term outcomes after stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation. World J Surg 34:2191–2196

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Schwandner O, Furst A, German STARR Registry Study Group (2010) Assessing the safety, effectiveness, and quality of life after the STARR procedure for obstructed defecation: results of the German STARR registry. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395:505–513

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    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 10:138–143

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    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 262:742–748

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Picciariello A, Papagni V, Martines G et al (2019) Post-operative clinical, manometric and defaecographic findings in patients undergoing unsuccessful STARR operation for obstructed defecation. Int J Colorectal Dis 34:837–842

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gouvas N, Georgiou PA, Agalianos C et al (2015) Ventral colporectopexy for overt rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 17:34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kremel D, Riss S, Muller C et al (2018) Adverse obstetric history is not a risk factor for poor outcome after ventral rectopexy for obstructive defaecation syndrome. Colorectal Dis 20:1125–1131

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    D’Hoore A, Penninckx F (2006) Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Surg Endosc 20:1919–1923

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Altomare DF, Picciariello A, Memeo R et al (2018) Pelvic floor function following ventral rectopexy versus STARR in the treatment of obstructed defecation. Tech Coloproctol 22:289–294

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Alemrajabi M, Darabi B, Banivaheb B, Hemmati N, Jahanian S, Moradi M (2020) Polyvinylidene fluoride mesh use in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in patients with obstructive defecation syndrome for the first time. J Invest Surg 1–6

  30. 30.

    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 38:528–534

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Collinson R, Wijffels N, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2010) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse: short-term functional results. Colorectal Dis 12:97–104

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Franceschilli L, Varvaras D, Capuano I et al (2015) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for the treatment of obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse: a critical appraisal of the first 100 cases. Tech Coloproctol 19:209–219

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Gosselink MP, Adusumilli S, Harmston C et al (2013) Impact of slow transit constipation on the outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for obstructed defaecation associated with high grade internal rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis 15:749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Horisberger K, Rickert A, Templin S, Post S, Kienle P (2016) Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in complex pelvic floor disorder. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:991–996

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    McLean R, Kipling M, Musgrave E, Mercer-Jones M (2018) Short- and long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy using biological mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective cohort study of 224 consecutive patients. Colorectal Dis 20:424–436

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Madbouly KM, Mohii AD (2019) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy versus stapled transanal rectal resection for treatment of obstructed defecation in the elderly: long-term results of a prospective randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum 62:47–55

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Tsunoda A, Takahashi T, Hayashi K, Yagi Y, Kusanagi H (2018) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in patients with fecal incontinence associated with rectoanal intussusception: prospective evaluation of clinical, physiological and morphological changes. Tech Coloproctol 22:425–431

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    van der Hagen SJ, van Gemert WG, Soeters PB, de Wet H, Baeten CG (2012) Transvaginal posterior colporrhaphy combined with laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for isolated Grade III rectocele: a prospective study of 27 patients. Colorectal Dis 14:1398–1402

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Wong MT, Abet E, Rigaud J, Frampas E, Lehur PA, Meurette G (2011) Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for complex rectocoele: impact on anorectal and sexual function. Colorectal Dis 13:e320–e326

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Wong M, Meurette G, Abet E, Podevin J, Lehur PA (2011) Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for complex rectocele. Colorectal Dis 13:1019–1023

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ris F, Gorissen KJ, Ragg J et al (2017) Rectal axis and enterocele on proctogram may predict laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy outcomes for rectal intussusception. Tech Coloproctol 21:627–632

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Agachan F, Chen T, Pfeifer J, Reissman P, Wexner SD (1996) A constipation scoring system to simplify evaluation and management of constipated patients. Dis Colon Rectum 39:681–685

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Altomare DF (2010) ODS score and obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 53:363

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Frank L, Kleinman L, Farup C, Taylor L, Miner P (1999) Psychometric validation of a constipation symptom assessment questionnaire. Scand J Gastroenterol 34:870–877

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW et al (1999) Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the fecal incontinence severity index. Dis Colon Rectum 42:1525–1532

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44:77–80

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Altomare DF, Di Lena M, Giuratrabocchetta S et al (2014) The Three Axial Perineal Evaluation (TAPE) score: a new scoring system for comprehensive evaluation of pelvic floor function. Colorectal Dis 16:459–468

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Danquechin Dorval E, Barbieux JP, Picon L, Alison D, Codjovi P, Rouleau P (1994) Simplified measurement of colonic transit time by one radiography of the abdomen and a single type of marker. Normal values in 82 volunteers related to the sexes. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 18:141–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Wijffels NA, Collinson R, Cunningham C, Lindsey I (2010) What is the natural history of internal rectal prolapse? Colorectal Dis 12:822–830

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Marti MC, Roche B, Deleaval JP (1999) Rectoceles: value of videodefaecography in selection of treatment policy. Colorectal Dis 1:324–329

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    D’Hoore A, Vanbeckevoort D, Penninckx F (2008) Clinical, physiological and radiological assessment of rectovaginal septum reinforcement with mesh for complex rectocele. Br J Surg 95:1264–1272

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Marquis P, De La Loge C, Dubois D, McDermott A, Chassany O (2005) Development and validation of the patient assessment of constipation quality of life questionnaire. Scand J Gastroenterol 40:540–551

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Eypasch E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S et al (1995) Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg 82:216–222

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Salvatore S (2005) P-QOL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:176–181

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Rockwood TH (2004) Incontinence severity and QOL scales for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126:106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Rahimi S et al (2010) Age-related pelvic floor modifications and prolapse risk factors in postmenopausal women. Menopause 17:204–212

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios K. Manatakis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

Since the manuscript is a systematic review and meta-analysis, ethics approval and informed consent are not relevant.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manatakis, D.K., Gouvas, N., Pechlivanides, G. et al. Ventral Prosthesis Rectopexy for obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Updates Surg (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01177-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ventral Prosthesis Rectopexy
  • Obstructed defecation syndrome
  • Systematic review
  • Meta-analysis