BACKGROUND: Resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy are widely accepted surgical options for the treatment of rectal prolapse; however, reports on long-term recurrence rates and functional outcomes are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We compared quality of life, long-term functional outcomes, and prolapse recurrence after resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively collected rectal prolapse surgery database. SETTINGS: Patients who underwent resection rectopexy or ventral mesh rectopexy at our center between 2009 and 2016 were included. PATIENTS: Two hundred twenty patients were included, of whom 208 (94%) were women; 85 (39%) underwent resection rectopexy and 135 (61%) ventral mesh rectopexy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prolapse recurrence. RESULTS: The resection rectopexy group was younger (median 52 vs 60 years old, p = 0.02) and had more open procedures (20% vs 9%, p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 110 (interquartile range 94–146) months for resection rectopexy and 113 (87–137) months for ventral mesh rectopexy, recurrences occurred in 21 (26%) in the resection rectopexy and 50 (39%) in the ventral mesh rectopexy group (p = 0.041). The median time to recurrence was 44 (18–80) months in the resection rectopexy group and 28.5 (11–52.5) months in the ventral mesh rectopexy group (p = 0.14). There were no differences in the recurrence rate for primary prolapses in resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy. The recurrence rate for redo prolapses was higher in the ventral mesh rectopexy group at 63% at 10 years versus 25% in the resection rectopexy group (p = 0.006). Functional outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective review, recall bias. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes after resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy were comparable. Ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with a higher prolapse recurrence rate after recurrent rectal prolapse repair. See Video Abstract. CALIDAD DE VIDA, RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y RECURRENCIA DESPUÉS DE LA RECTOPEXIA POR RESECCIÓN VERSUS LA RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL CON MALLA PARA LA REPARACIÓN DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL: ANTECEDENTES: La rectopexia de resección y la rectopexia ventral con malla son opciones quirúrgicas ampliamente aceptadas para el tratamiento del prolapso rectal; sin embargo, faltan informes sobre las tasas de recurrencia a largo plazo y los resultados funcionales. OBJETIVO: Comparamos la calidad de vida, los resultados funcionales a largo plazo y la recurrencia del prolapso después de la rectopexia de resección versus la rectopexia ventral con malla. DISEÑO: Revisamos retrospectivamente nuestra base de datos de cirugía de prolapso rectal recopilada prospectivamente. ENTORNO CLÍNICO: Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a rectopexia resección o rectopexia ventral con malla en nuestro centro entre 2009 y 2016. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron 220 pacientes, de los cuales 208 (94%) eran mujeres; 85 (39%) fueron sometidos a rectopexia de resección, 135 (61%) rectopexia ventral con malla. INTERVENCIONES: Ninguna. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN: Recurrencia del prolapso. RESULTADOS: El grupo de rectopexia de resección era más joven (mediana 52 vs 60 años, p = 0,02) y tenía más procedimientos abiertos (20% vs 9%, p < 0,001). Después de una mediana de seguimiento de 110 (RIC 94 – 146) meses para la rectopexia de resección y 113 (87 – 137) para la rectopexia ventral con malla, se produjeron recurrencias en 21 (26%) del grupo de rectopexia de resección y en 50 (39%) del grupo de rectopexia ventral con malla (p = 0,041). La mediana del tiempo hasta la recurrencia fue de 44 (18 – 80) meses en el grupo de rectopexia de resección y 28,5 (11 – 52,5) en el grupo de rectopexia ventral con malla (p = 0,14). No hubo diferencias en la tasa de recurrencia de prolapsos primarios en la rectopexia de resección versus la rectopexia con malla ventral. La tasa de recurrencia de prolapsos repetidos fue mayor en el grupo de rectopexia con malla ventral, 63% a los 10 años, versus 25% en el grupo de rectopexia con resección (p = 0,006). Los resultados funcionales fueron similares entre los dos grupos. LIMITACIONES: Revisión retrospectiva, sesgo. CONCLUSIÓN: La calidad de vida a largo plazo y los resultados funcionales después de la rectopexia de resección y la rectopexia ventral con malla fueron comparables. La rectopexia ventral con malla se asoció con una mayor tasa de recurrencia del prolapso después de la reparación del prolapso rectal recurrente. (Traducción—Ingrid Melo)

Purpose: Recurrence of rectal prolapse following the Altemeier procedure is reported with rates up to 40%. The optimal surgical management of recurrences has limited data available. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a favored procedure for primary rectal prolapse, but its role in managing recurrences after Altemeier is unclear. VMR for recurrent prolapse involves implanting the mesh on the colon, which has a thinner wall, more active peristalsis, no mesorectum, less peritoneum available for covering the mesh, and potential diverticula. These factors can affect mesh-related complications such as erosion, migration, or infection. This study assessed the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of VMR for recurrent rectal prolapse after the Altemeier procedure. Methods: We queried our prospectively maintained database between 01/01/2008 and 06/30/2022 for patients who had experienced a recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse following Altemeier’s perineal proctosigmoidectomy and subsequently underwent ventral mesh rectopexy. Results: Ten women with a median age of 67 years (range 61) and a median BMI of 27.8 kg/m² (range 9) were included. Five (50%) had only one Altemeier, and five (50%) had multiple rectal prolapse surgeries, including Altemeier before VMR. No mesh-related complications occurred during a 65-month (range 165) median follow-up period. Three patients (30%) experienced minor postoperative complications unrelated to the mesh. Long-term complications were chronic abdominal pain and incisional hernia in one patient, respectively. One out of five (20%) patients with only one previous prolapse repair had a recurrence, while all patients (100%) with multiple prior repairs recurred. Conclusion: Mesh implantation on the colon is possible without adverse reactions. However, high recurrence rates in patients with multiple previous surgeries raise doubts about using VMR for secondary or tertiary recurrences.

Background: A colosplenic fistula (CsF) is an extremely rare complication. Its diagnosis and management remain poorly understood, owing to its infrequent incidence. Our objective was to systematically review the etiology, clinical features, diagnosis, management, and prognosis to help clinicians gain a better understanding of this unusual complication and provide aid if it is to be encountered. Methods: A systematic review of studies reporting CsF diagnosis in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Wiley Cochrane Library from 1946 to June 2022. Additionally, a retrospective review of four cases at our institution were included. Cases were evaluated for patient characteristics (age, sex, and comorbidities), CsF characteristics including causes, symptoms at presentation, diagnosis approach, management approach, pathology findings, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, and prognosis were collected. Results: Thirty patients with CsFs were analyzed, including four cases at our institution and 26 single-case reports. Most of the patients were male (70%), with a median age of 56 years. The most common etiologies were colonic lymphoma (30%) and colorectal carcinoma (17%). Computed tomography (CT) was commonly used for diagnosis (90%). Approximately 87% of patients underwent a surgical intervention, most commonly segmental resection (81%) of the affected colon and splenectomy (77%). Nineteen patients were initially managed surgically, and 12 patients were initially managed nonoperatively. However, 11 of the nonoperative patients ultimately required surgery due to unresolved symptoms. The rate of postoperative complications was (17%). Symptoms resolved with surgical intervention in 25 (83%) patients. Only one patient (3%) had had postoperative mortality. Conclusions: Our review of 30 cases worldwide is the largest in literature. CsFs are predominantly complications of neoplastic processes. CsF may be successfully and safely treated with splenectomy and resection of the affected colon, with a low rate of postoperative complications.