Resection rectopexy is still an acceptable operation for rectal prolapse

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare resection rectopexy (RR) with ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). This institutional review board–approved retrospective study compared patients with rectal prolapse, who underwent RR or VMR from 2009 to 2016. The primary end point was the comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence rates. Seventy-nine RR and 108 VMR patients qualified. Using propensity score matching, the two groups were not significantly different (P 5 0.818). There were no differences regarding gender (female 103 vs 72; P 5 0.4) and age (59.3 vs 53.9; P 5 0.054). Patients in the VMR group had a greater body mass index (25.5 vs 22.9; P 5 0.001) and poorer physical status (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3 57.4% vs 41.8%; P 5 0.04). The VMR group had more: robotic approaches (69.4% vs 8.9%; P < 0.001), concomitant urogynecological procedures (63 vs 19; P < 0.001), and longer operative time (269 vs 206 minutes; P < 0.001) but a reduced length of stay (2 vs 5 days; P < 0.001). The median follow-up (16 vs 26 months; P 5 0.125) and the median time of recurrence (14 vs 38 months; P 5 0.163) were similar. No differences were observed for complications or recurrence (10.2% vs 10.1%; P 5 0.43). We failed to identify superiority based on surgical technique.