Laparoscopic posterior rectopexy (Well’s procedure) for full-thickness rectal prolapse following laparoscopic repair of an anorectal malformation: A case report

Elhaddad, A.; Amerstorfer, Eva E.; Singer, Georg; Huber-Zeyringer, Andrea; Till, Holger

doi:10.1016/j.ijscr.2017.12.020

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the indications and timing of intervention for prolapse. Brisighelli et al recommended that surgical repair of rectal prolapse should be considered for patients with symptoms that negatively impact their quality of life, such as bleeding due to ulceration or contact with a diaper or underwear, staining by mucus discharge, difficulty in riding a bike or sitting for a long time, or the wearing of a pad, and surgical correction of prolapse for asymptomatic patients is controversial 52,56 . There is a debate on whether operative repair should be performed prior to stoma closure when the prolapse develops before stoma reversal 52,53 .…”

Section: Surgical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, there is no gold standard procedure for prolapse repair, and various interventions have been reported, such as warm hyperosmotic saline in a hip bath, 45 submucosal hypertonic saline injection or injection sclerotherapy, 57 the Gant‐Miwa procedure, 50 mucosal resection, 50,54 anal full‐thickness resection, 50,52,53 the Thiersch anal encircling procedure, 57 proctosigmoidectomy, 57 and laparoscopic posterior rectopexy with a mesh and concurrent perineal mucosal excision 56 . We have been recently performing laparoscopic suture rectopexy with good results.…”

Section: Surgical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laparoscopically assisted anorectoplasty—Surgical procedures and outcomes: A literature review

Ishimaru

Kawashima

Hayashi

et al. 2020

Asian J Endoscop Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anorectal malformation includes various types of anomalies. The goal of definitive surgery is achievement of fecal continence. Twenty years have passed since laparoscopically assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP) was reported by Georgeson. Since LAARP is gaining popularity, its long‐term outcomes should be evaluated. Presently, there is no evidence regarding the optimal method of ligating and dividing the fistula correctly and creating the pull‐through canal accurately. Rectal prolapse and remnant of the original fistula (ROOF) tend to develop more often in LAARP patients than in posterior sagittal anorectoplasty (PSARP) patients; however, robust evidence is not available. Prolapse may be prevented by suture fixation of the rectum to the presacral fascia; however, if prolapse occurs, the indication, timing, and the best method for surgical correction remain unclear. Most patients with ROOF are asymptomatic, and there is controversy regarding the indications for ROOF resection. This article aimed to detail the various modifications of the LAARP procedures reported previously and to describe the surgical outcomes, particularly focusing on rectal prolapse, ROOF, and fecal continence, by reviewing the literature. Functional outcomes after LAARP were almost similar to those noted after PSARP, and we have demonstrated that LAARP is not inferior to PSARP with respect to fecal continence. Although there is controversy regarding the application of LAARP for recto‐bulbar cases, we believe that LAARP is still evolving, and we can achieve better outcomes by improving the procedure.

show abstract

Section: Surgical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%