Anatomic and functional results of ventral biological mesh rectopexy for posterior pelvic floor disorders.

INTRODUCTION

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is the gold standard for rectal prolapse surgery, but the type of mesh reinforcement is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the anatomic and functional results of a single center cohort of patients receiving ventral rectopexy with biological mesh compared to a reference group who had implantation of synthetic mesh. We also assessed the predictive factors for recurrence.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

Seventy patients (2015-2021) were included in the biological mesh group and were compared to a reference group of 345 patients operated on with a synthetic mesh (2004-2017).

RESULTS

In the biological mesh group, the mean age of patients was 65 years (53-72). The main disorders of the posterior pelvic floor were rectal prolapse (30 cases) or rectocele (37 cases). Two patients had solitary rectal ulcer syndrome and one had internal prolapse. VMR was performed by a laparoscopic approach with robotic assistance in 93%. After a median follow-up of 12 (4.5-23) months, the anatomic recurrence rate was 10%. The median satisfaction score assessed in a telephone interview by a semi-quantitative scale from 0 to 10 was 7. Compared to the synthetic group, neither the morbidity rate (Dindo>2) (0.6% synthetic versus 1.4% biological mesh), nor the recurrence rate (12% synthetic versus 10% biological (ns) with an average interval of 13.5 versus 14 months, respectively) were statistically significantly different.

CONCLUSION

VMR with biological mesh represents an alternative to synthetic mesh. Despite its resorbable nature, biological mesh does not seem to increase the risk of recurrence and offers satisfying functional results after a medium term follow-up.