Abdominal Rectopexy with Absorbable and Non-Absorbable Materials in the Treatment for Rectal Prolapse
Languages of publication
The aim of the study was to present and compare own results of abdominal rectopexy performed with absorbable and nonabsorbable materials used in surgical repair of rectal prolapse.Material and methods. In the years 1991-2009, 50 patients were operated on for rectal prolapse. The first 8 patients (group I) were operated using absorbale polyglycolic acid mesh. The next 42 patients were operated using non-absorbable polypropylene mesh (group II). 12 patients with chronic, incurable constipation had sigmoidectomy and rectopexy performed at the same operation. Rectopexy was performed with the mesh and fixed to the pelvic fascia and periosteum and mesorectum, leaving the anterior one third of the rectum free. 6 months after surgery functional outcomes were evaluated. Statistic analysis with the level of statistical significance p<0,005 was applied to obtained functional results.Results. On the follow up visits, there were no symptoms of the recurrence of rectal prolapse in 5 patients (62.5%) from group I and in 25 patients (92.6%) from group II. Patients relapsing were reoperated 24 to 98 months after primary surgery. In all patients from group I (absorbable mesh), prosthetic material was not found at reoperation. In redo surgery only non-absorbable mesh was used.Conclusions. The effectiveness of rectal fixation depends on the on the durability of the prosthetic material. In the studied group polypropylene mesh was superior in rectopexy to absorbable mesh.
1 - 12 - 2011
17 - 2 - 2012
- Arndt M, Pircher W: Absorbable mesh in the treatment of rectal prolapse. Int J Colorectal Dis 1988; 3: 141-43.[PubMed][Crossref]
- Galili Y, Raban M: Comparison of polyglycolic acid and polypropylene mesh for rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse. Eur J Surg 1997; 163: 445-48.
- Caliskan C, Denizli A, Makay O et al.: Experimental comparison of meshes for rectal prolapse Surgery. Eur Surg Res 2009; 43: 310-14.[WoS][Crossref]
- Kościński T, Stadnik H: Surgical treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse - own experience. Pol Przegl Chir 2006; 78, 7: 757-75.
- Madiba T, Baig M, Wexner S: Surgical management of rectal prolapse. Arch Surg 2005; 140: 63-73.[PubMed][Crossref]
- Thiede A, Jostarndt L, Luenstedt B et al.: Kontrollierte histologische und mikrobiologische Untersuchungen zur Hemmwirkung und Polyglycolsaurefaden bei Infektion. Chirurg 1980; 51: 35-38.
- Zieren J, Neuss H, Ablassmaier B et al.: Adhesions after intraperitoneal mesh repair in pigs: Prolene vs Vypro. J Laparoendos Adv Surg Tech A 2002; 12: 249-52.
- Bellon J, Contreras L, Bujan J et al.: Tissue response to polypropylene meshes used in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 669-73.[Crossref]
- Trabuco E, Klingele C, Gebhart J: Xenograft use in reconstructive pelvic surgery: a review of the literature. Int Urogynecol J 2007; 18: 555-63.[Crossref][WoS]
- Araki Y, Isomoto H, Tsuzi Y et al.: Transsacral rectopexy for recurrent complete rectal prolapse. Surg Today 1999; 29: 970-72.[Crossref]
- Lunkkonen P, Mikkonen U, Jarvinen H: Abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy vs. rectopexy alone for rectal prolapse: A prospective, randomized study. Int J Colorect Dis 1992; 7: 219-22.[Crossref]
Publication order reference