Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endoscopic fixation of the rectum for rectal prolapse: a feasibility and survival experimental study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In recent years, there has been considerable interest in developing technology as well as techniques that could widen the therapeutic horizons of endoscopy. Rectal prolapse, a benign localized condition causing considerable morbidity, could be an excellent focus for new endoscopic therapies. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of endoluminal fixation of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall, after pushing it up inside the body, using an in vivo animal model.

Methods

We performed an in vivo comparative surgical study in a porcine model, including laparoscopic mobilization of the rectum and posterior rectopexy (standard surgical method) or endoluminal tacking of the rectum. After proving feasibility in ex vivo and acute studies, we performed a survival study to evaluate the safety of endoluminal tacking of the mobilized rectum to the anterior abdominal wall. The main outcome measures were successful completion of the tasks, maintenance of the fixation, complications associated with the methods, and survival studies including histopathological examinations of the fixation sites.

Results

There were two groups: laparoscopic rectopexy (8 animals) and endoluminal fixation of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall (10 animals). There were no differences between these two groups in their postoperative recovery. The group with the endoluminal fixation was found to have adequate attachment of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall (measured attachment pressure in the endoluminal group = 6.06 ± 0.52 ft-lb, in the control group = 4.86 ± 2.00 ft-lb) on both gross and microscopic evaluation.

Conclusion

Endoscopic fixation of the mobilized rectum is feasible and safe in this model and in the future may provide an effective alternative to current treatment options for rectal prolapse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study G (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350(20):2050–2059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365(9472):1718–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6(7):477–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jayne DG, Brown JM, Thorpe H et al (2005) Bladder and sexual function following resection for rectal cancer in a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open technique. Br J Surg 92(9):1124–1132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kitano S, Inomata M, Sato A et al (2005) Randomized controlled trial to evaluate laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG 0404. Jpn J Clin Oncol 35(8):475–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Linke GR, Tarantino I, Hoetzel R et al (2010) Transvaginal rigid-hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy: evaluation in routine clinical practice. Endoscopy 42(7):571–575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mohiuddin SS, Gonzalez JJ, Glass J et al (2009) Laparoscopic-assisted endoluminal hybrid surgery: a stepping stone to NOTES. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 19(6):474–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Keranen I, Lepisto A, Udd M et al (2010) Outcome of patients after endoluminal stent placement for benign colorectal obstruction. Scand J Gastroenterol 45(6):725–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Agrawal D, Chak A, Champagne BJ et al (2010) Endoscopic mucosal resection with full-thickness closure for difficult polyps: a prospective clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc 71(6):1082–1088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheung HY, Chung CC, Tsang WW et al (2009) Endolaparoscopic approach vs conventional open surgery in the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg 144(12):1127–1132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fiori E, Lamazza A, De Cesare A et al (2004) Palliative management of malignant rectosigmoidal obstruction Colostomy vs. endoscopic stenting. A randomized prospective trial. Anticancer Res 24(1):265–268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Takesue Y, Yokoyama T, Murakami Y et al (1999) The effectiveness of perineal rectosigmoidectomy for the treatment of rectal prolapse in elderly and high-risk patients. Surg Today 29(3):290–293

    Google Scholar 

  13. Williams JG, Rothenberger DA, Madoff RD et al (1992) Treatment of rectal prolapse in the elderly by perineal rectosigmoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 35(9):830–834

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim DS, Tsang CB, Wong WD et al (1999) Complete rectal prolapse: evolution of management and results. Dis Colon Rectum 42(4):460–466; discussion 466–469

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Group CCC (2000) Surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients: a systematic review. Lancet 356:968–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Turrentine FE, Wang H, Simpson VB et al (2006) Surgical risk factors, morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg 203(6):865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Law WL, Chu KW, Tung PH (2002) Laparoscopic colorectal resection: a safe option for elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg 195(6):768–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li G, Warner M, Lang BH et al (2009) Epidemiology of anesthesia related mortality in the United States, 1999–2005. Anesthesiology 110(4):759–765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. De Oliveira O, Stein SL Jr, Trencheva KI et al (2010) Comparative outcomes of elderly patients undergoing Altemeier procedure versus laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Asian J Endosc Surg 3(1):28–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ballesta LC, Cid JA, Poves I et al (2003) Laparoscopic surgery in the elderly patient. Surg Endosc 17(2):333–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tou S, Brown SR, Malik AI et al (2008) Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(4):CD001758

  22. Kennedy GD, Heise C, Rajamanickam V et al (2009) Laparoscopy decreases postoperative complication rates after abdominal colectomy. Ann Surg 249:596–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pemberton JD, Stalker LK (1939) Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse. Ann Surg 109(5):799–808

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mortensen NJ, Vellacott KD, Wilson MG (1984) Lahaut’s operation for rectal prolapse. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 66(1):17–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Arezzo A, Miegge A, Garbarini A et al (2010) Endoluminal vacuum therapy for anastomotic leaks after rectal surgery. Tech Coloproctol 14(3):279–281

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bredenoord AJ (2010) New therapies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol 56(2):129–138

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mellinger JD, MacFadyen BV, Kozarek RA et al (2007) Initial experience with a novel endoscopic device allowing intragastric manipulation and plication. Surg Endosc 21(6):1002–1005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Thompson CC, Ryou M, Soper NJ et al (2009) Evaluation of a manually driven, multitasking platform for complex endoluminal and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery applications (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 70(1):121–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Calisto JL, Kawamura J, Trencheva K et al (2011) Fixation of intestinal tissue using a novel endoscopic device. Surg Innov 18(1):44–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cahill RA (2010) Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery—here and now. Surgeon 8(1):44–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chiu PW, Wai Ng EK, Teoh AY et al (2010) Transgastric endoluminal gastrojejunostomy: technical development from bench to animal study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 71(2):390–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Park PO, Bergstrom M, Rothstein R et al (2010) Endoscopic sutured closure of a gastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery access gastrotomy compared with open surgical closure in a porcine model A randomized, multicenter controlled trial. Endoscopy 42(4):311–317

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ho YH, Ashour MA (2010) Techniques for colorectal anastomosis. World J Gastroenterol 16(13):1610–1621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wijffels N, Cunningham C, Dixon A et al (2011) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse is safe and effective in the elderly. Does this make perineal procedures obsolete? Colorectal Dis 13(5):561–566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge and express sincere gratitude to Olympus for the financial support of this project. They also thank Yuko Tonohira, medical illustrator in the Colon and Rectal Surgery Section, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, for providing illustrations for the project and this article.

Disclosures

This particular study was investigator-initiated and was funded by Olympus. Dr. J. W. Milsom received course support from Olympus, Covidien, and Applied Medical and research support from Olympus. Dr. T. Sonoda received course support from Olympus, Covidien, and Applied Medical and research support from Adolor. K. Trencheva and Drs. R. Pavoor, J. DiRocco, P. Shukla, and J. Kawamura have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Jeffrey Milsom, Koiana Trencheva, Raghava Pavoor, Joseph DiRocco, Parul J. Shukla, Junichiro Kawamura & Toyooki Sonoda

  2. Department of Surgery, Good Samaritan Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Joseph DiRocco

  3. Department of Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan

    Junichiro Kawamura

Authors
  1. Jeffrey Milsom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Koiana Trencheva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raghava Pavoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joseph DiRocco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Parul J. Shukla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Junichiro Kawamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Toyooki Sonoda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Milsom.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Milsom, J., Trencheva, K., Pavoor, R. et al. Endoscopic fixation of the rectum for rectal prolapse: a feasibility and survival experimental study. Surg Endosc 25, 3691–3697 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1778-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1778-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation