Are there any advantages of 3D laparoscopic technologies in surgery for rectocele and rectal prolapse?

Abstract

AIM: to assess results of 3D laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus traditional 2D laparoscopy for rectocele and rectal prolapse.PATIENTS AND METHODS: a prospective randomized study (NCT 04817150) included patients aged 18 to 70 years who underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectocele and/or rectal prolapse. The assessment included operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications rate and their severity by Clavien-Dindo scale, the pain intensity by VAS, the volume of the fluid collection in the implant site 2–3 days and 2–3 weeks after the procedure. The surgeon’s comfort and ergonomics when using 3D systems was evaluated using POMS questionnaire. The late results were assessed by recurrence rate, functional results — by Cleveland Clinic Constipation scale score, Incontinence scale score, P-Qol, and PGII.RESULTS: the study included 29 patients of the main and 32 patients of the control group. The follow-up was 21 ± 20.3 months. One complication developed in the control group (p = 1.0). The operation time in the main group was 74.1 ± 14 minutes (87.1 ± 24.3 minutes in controls, p = 0.01). The intraoperative blood loss was 19.8 ± 9.6 ml in the main group (55 ± 39.2 ml in controls, p = 0.001). The pain intensity was significantly lower in the main group (18.0 vs 22.5 points, p = 0.03). The volume of fluid collection 2–3 after surgery mesh site was 21.2 ± 9.7 cm3 in the main group (30.7 ± 25.6 cm3 in the control group, p = 0.02). The POMS scale assessment for a surgeon in the main group was 56.4 ± 33.5 points (87.3 ± 30.8 points in the control group). A follow-up examination 12 months postop revealed no recurrence in both groups (p = 1.0). The main and the control group showed no significant differences in functional outcomes.CONCLUSIONS: the use of 3D laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectocele and rectal prolapse is comparable in late results with traditional laparoscopic procedure. However, it takes less operation time, lower pain intensity, less intraoperative blood loss, smaller fluid collection at mesh site, better comfort and ergonomics for surgeon.