Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy Versus Transvaginal Posterior Colporrhaphy in Management of Anterior Rectocele

Abstract

Background: Management of rectocele is challenging. Treatment usually starts with conservative measures and may involve surgical intervention in non-responding patients. We compared the outcomes of transvaginal posterior colporrhaphy (PC) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in treatment of anterior rectocele.

Methods: Patients with anterior rectocele who underwent PC or LVMR were functionally assessed using Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) was used for clinical assessment, defecography for anatomic assessment, and manometry for physiologic assessment. In addition, quality of life was assessed.

Results: A total of 231 female patients with a mean age of 39 years were included to the study. One hundred fifty-nine underwent PC and 72 underwent LVMR. The LVMR group showed significantly a better functional outcome as compared with the PC group (p < 0.0001). The mean of CCCS at 1 year after LVMR was 6 ± 2.3 vs 9.2 ± 1.2 after PC. The mean of PISQ-12 at 1 year after LVMR was 39.3 ± 2.8 vs 35.8 ± 2.2 after PC. LVMR showed better anatomic correction by defecography, had significantly higher quality of life scores, and had a longer operative time as compared with PC, yet with comparable incidence of complications.

Conclusion: PC and LVMR are both effective treatment options for treatment of rectocele. LVMR was associated with better anatomic correction and greater improvement in constipation, sexual symptoms, and quality of life compared with PC. Although LVMR had a longer operation time than PC, the complication rate of the two procedures was comparable.

Keywords: Functional assessment; Mesh rectopexy; Posterior colporrhaphy; Quality of life; Rectocele.