Recurrence and Bowel Function After Laparoscopic Vaginorectopexy, a Modified Anterior Rectopexy

Evaluation of Anatomy and Symptoms After Surgery With a Novel Anterior Rectopexy in a Cohort With Combined Pelvic Defects.

Several pelvic prolapses can render defecation difficulties and they are often treated with different surgical techniques. This study will evaluate a novel variation of a laparoscopic technique used to treat rectal prolapse that is modified to treat multiple pelvic prolapses. 25 women with symptoms of obstructed defecation and multiple pelvic prolapses are assessed before and after surgery with clinical examination, defecography and a questionnaire for bowel function and quality of life. Follow up was scheduled after three and twelve months and at long term (minimum ten years).

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Fecal Incontinence; Rectocele; Rectal Prolapse; Defecation Disorder; Enterocele
• Intervention / Treatment: Procedure: Laparoscopic vaginorectopexy

Detailed Description

Patients and Methods

Patients From 2002 to 2008, referred patients with symptoms of obstructed defecation (=OD) and diagnosed with multiple posterior pelvic organ prolapse (=PPOP) (protocol below) were considered for inclusion in the study. More than one defect (internal-or external rectal prolapse, Enterocele (EC) or Rectocele (RC)) was denoted as multiple PPOP. Patients were evaluated with clinical examination, defecography and a questionnaire that evaluated bowel function and bowel-related quality of life (QoL). Patients who did not respond to conservative treatment (diet advice, oral bulking agents, rectal enemas and/or bio-feedback) were offered inclusion in the study.

Patients with anismus were excluded after evaluation with a combination of defecography (see below) and manometry.

Surgical procedure Pneumoperitoneum was established with Verres needle. Two 12 mm trocars are placed at the umbilicus and two cm above the symphysis. Two 5 mm trocars are placed in the right and left iliac fossa. The procedure starts with an incision exposing the promontory which continues down along the right peritoneal reflection (Fig 9). A limited dissection of the promontory and a shallow unilateral incision was employed to avoid damage to the superior hypogastric plexus and the hypogastric nerves. The rectovaginal space was opened down to the pelvic floor, exposing the pelvic floor muscles. A T-shaped Vypro-mesh was inserted into the rectovaginal space and sutured to the pelvic floor muscles lateral to the vagina and to the distal vagina with a non-absorbable suture (EthibondR,). Two additional sutures fixated the mesh to the sacrouterine ligaments, closing the rectovaginal space and elevating the pouch of Douglas. Staples were used to anchor the mesh to the promontory as well as the mesorectum to the mesh, preventing rectal intussusception. The peritoneal defect was closed with a running, absorbable suture.

Bowel Function Questionnaire The symptom load was evaluated with Linkoping Bowel function Questionnaire (LBQ). It is a quantitative bowel function questionnaire that evaluates four domains: fecal incontinence, constipation, OD and bowel-related quality of life. Symptom load is graded in four levels. Questions considered most relevant for each category of OD, incontinence and QoL were used for the longitudinal analyses.

Defecography

The defecography used plain X-ray and pictures/film were recorded at rest and during straining with the patient situated on a commode. Preparations included oral, rectal and vaginal contrast. Examination of the investigation was made by two senior radiologists and the following protocol was used for evaluation:

Rectal prolapse Oxford grading system 1-5 for intususception and external prolapse.

Enterocele Grade1 EC reaching below cervix, but not distal to half of the vaginal length. Grade 2 EC reaching below half of the vaginal length, but not below the sphincter plane.

Grade 3 EC protruding below the sphincter plane and out of the anal canal.

Rectocele A protrusion beyond the imaginary line between the sphincter and the rectum over or equal to 2 cm in depth.

Anismus The inability to open the anal canal during evacuation of rectal contrast without an anatomical reason. The puborectal function is evaluated separately regardless of signs of anismus with assessment of the anorectal angle.

The following protocol was used at follow-up visits:

3 months: Recording of per -and postoperative complications. Review of medical records and visit at the outpatient clinic.

12 months:

1. Clinical examination by one surgeon and one gynaecologist
2. Defecography
3. Bowel function questionnaire (LBQ)

Since defecographic evaluation was not always available due to technical failure and/or patient related factors, the evaluation protocol was adjusted according to the reliability of the clinical examination. Clinical evaluation of EC and internal prolapse (IRP) is difficult and unreliable. However, clinical evaluation of RC (> 2cm), is considered reliable. Therefore, clinical evaluation was considered sufficient for evaluation of rectocele, but not for enterocele or internal prolapse.

The following protocol was used:

Rectal prolapse and RC: Clinical evaluation and defecography. If defecography was not evaluable, clinical evaluation was considered sufficient.

IRP and EC: Clinical evaluation and defecography. If defecography was not evaluable, clinical evaluation was considered insufficient.

Long term:

During 2020, LBQ was sent to all patients who were alive achieving a minimum of 10 years follow-up; patients who did not respond were contacted via telephone. Median follow-up was 16 years (10-18 years)

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 25
• Phase: Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Adult; Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Symptoms of obstructed defecation, more than one posterior pelvic organ prolapse, undergone conservative treatment

Exclusion Criteria:

• Anismus

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: N/A
• Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)

Number of Arms

1

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Surgical intervention; Operated with the intervention, ie vaginorectopexy	Procedure: Laparoscopic vaginorectopexy; Modified laparoscopic anterior rectopexy for multiple pelvic prolapses

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Recurrence	Clinical and radiological assesment of relapse of prolapse	One year
Bowel function	Questionnaire regarding fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation	Over ten years
Bowel related quality of life	Questionnaire regarding bowel related quality of life	Over ten years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Postoperative complications	Complications within 30 days after surgery	30 days
Peroperative complications	Complications during surgery	surgery
Operative time	Time from start of operative procedure to the end of surgery	minutes
Conversions to open surgery	Numbers of operations where conversion to open surgery were necessary	Numbers
Hospital days	Number of days in hospital after surgery	days

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Sahlgrenska University Hospital
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Lars Borjesson, Professor, Göteborg University

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Mellgren A, Bremmer S, Johansson C, Dolk A, Uden R, Ahlback SO, Holmstrom B. Defecography. Results of investigations in 2,816 patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994 Nov;37(11):1133-41. doi: 10.1007/BF02049817.
• D'Hoore A, Penninckx F. Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Surg Endosc. 2006 Dec;20(12):1919-23. doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0485-y.
• van Geluwe B, Wolthuis A, Penninckx F, D'Hoore A. Lessons learned after more than 400 laparoscopic ventral rectopexies. Acta Chir Belg. 2013 Mar-Apr;113(2):103-6.
• Mellgren A, Dolk A, Johansson C, Bremmer S, Anzen B, Holmstrom B. Enterocele is correctable using the Ripstein rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994 Aug;37(8):800-4. doi: 10.1007/BF02050145.
• Boons P, Collinson R, Cunningham C, Lindsey I. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse improves constipation and avoids de novo constipation. Colorectal Dis. 2010 Jun;12(6):526-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01859.x. Epub 2009 Apr 10.
• Tsunoda A, Takahashi T, Matsuda S, Kusanagi H. Long-term annual functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectoanal intussusception and/or rectocele: evaluation of sustained improvement. Tech Coloproctol. 2021 Dec;25(12):1281-1289. doi: 10.1007/s10151-021-02499-4. Epub 2021 Oct 11.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): May 28, 2002
• Primary Completion (Actual): April 1, 2024
• Study Completion (Actual): October 1, 2025

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: March 11, 2024
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 19, 2024
• First Posted (Actual): March 26, 2024

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): November 28, 2025
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: November 22, 2025
• Last Verified: November 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: laparoscopy; obstructive defecation
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Pathological Conditions, Anatomical; Intestinal Diseases; Digestive System Diseases; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Rectal Diseases; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Prolapse; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms; Hernia; Fecal Incontinence; Rectal Prolapse; Rectocele
• Other Study ID Numbers: Dnr2021-06921-02

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No