Posterior Versus Lateral Laparoscopic Mesh Rectopexy for the Management of Complete Rectal Prolapse
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 招募中
- 入组人数
- 30
- 试验地点
- 2
- 主要终点
- Operative time
研究概览
简要总结
Aim of the study is to evaluate the outcomes of two different methods of mesh placement during laparoscopic rectopexy for the management of complete rectal prolapse lateral versus posterior mesh rectopexy
详细描述
Rectal prolapse is the full-thickness prolapse of the rectum, in which the rectum passes externally beyond the anal sphincters. It is a somewhat rare condition, estimated to occur in less than 0.5% of the population. Rectal prolapse has a 9:1 female predominance, and while it is occasionally seen in younger individuals, the incidence increases with age.
Surgical approaches for rectal prolapse can be divided into perineal and abdominal approaches. Traditionally, a perineal procedure such as Delorme or Altemeir operation was commonly used in elderly or frail patients while an abdominal procedure such as rectopexy with or without resection was reserved for younger and fitter patients. The frequency of laparoscopic abdominal repair of rectal prolapse has increased in recent years, with mesh rectopexy being the most popular procedure.
The mesh rectopexy operation was first described by Ripstein10 in 1952. Again, after mobilization of the rectum, an anterior sling of synthetic material (either absorbable or non-absorbable) is placed in front of the rectum and sutured to the sacral promontory. The rationale for this is to restore the natural curve of the rectum, which reduces the effect of downward abdominal pressure. The use of a non-elastic synthetic graft provides a firm anterior fascial support even in patients with significant pelvic floor descent, returning the rectum to a normal anatomical position.
The act of mobilization, suture, and fibrosis keeps the rectum fixed in position as adhesions form, attaching the rectum to the presacral fascia. Although SR is considered a good option for the cure of rectal prolapse/IS in both men and women, some reviews of this procedure noted a better overall clinical outcome in men. This may be due to occult sphincter defects in women, and failure to detect these defects before surgery owing to the lack of routine endoanal ultrasonography in the earlier years of prolapse surgery
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Treatment
- 盲法
- None
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 18 Years 至 75 Years(Adult, Older Adult)
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 否
入选标准
- •Age from 18 to 70 years.
- •Both sexes.
- •Patients with complete rectal prolapse.
排除标准
- •Unfit for surgery
- •Impaired coagulation profile
- •Contraindication of laparoscopy
结局指标
主要结局
Operative time
时间窗: Until the conclusion of the surgical procedure
Operative time will be measured (Time Frame: from inflation of abdomen till deflation in laparoscopic repair and from skin incision up to skin closure in open repair)
Intraoperative injuries
时间窗: Until the conclusion of the surgical procedure
Intra operative injuries will be recorded including bowel or vascular injuries
次要结局
- Improving of symptoms(28 days after surgery)
- Recurrence rate(28 days after surgery)
- Complications(28 days after surgery)
研究者
Omar Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed Makhlouf
Assistant Lecturer of General Surgery, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
Assiut University
