Application of synthetic and biological implants for fixation of rectovaginal septum in rectocele repair
https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2017-176-4-51-54
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. Comparative assessment of results was made in application of synthetic and biological implants for rectocele repair. MATERIAL AND METHODS. The patients (n = 61, aged 34-61 years old) underwent operation concerning an isolated rectocele at the period from 2012 to 2015. Diamond-shaped plasty was performed using transvaginal approach. Synthetic composite mesh was used in 33 patients of the first group and biologic implant was applied in 28 women of the second group. RESULTS. Defecography showed reduction of middle size of rectocele in both groups in term of one year after surgery. However, the difference was insignificant in patients with biological implants. According to individual comparative analysis, the patients (n =9 (32,1 %) of the second group had the same size of rectocele as it was in preoperative period, but only 3 (9,1 %) patients of the first group had the same proportion. CONCLUSIONS. The anatomic results were significantly worse after application of biological implants, which appeared to be less reliable.
About the Authors
Yu. A. Shelygin
A. N. Ryzhikh State Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
O. M. Biryukov
A. N. Ryzhikh State Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. Yu. Titov
A. N. Ryzhikh State Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. A. Mudrov
Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
G. V. Zadchin
A. N. Ryzhikh State Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Хатарьян А. Г., Праздников Э. Н., Дульеров К. А. и др. Двухуровневая пластика тазового дна в хирургическом лечении ректоцеле // Колопроктология. 2016. № 2. С. 17-24.
2. Шелыгин Ю. А., Бирюков О. М., Титов А. Ю. и др. Существуют ли предикторы результатов хирургического лечения ректоцеле? // Колопроктология. 2015. № 1. C. 64-69.
3. Шелыгин Ю. А., Титов А. Ю., Бирюков О. М. и др. Отдалённые результаты хирургического лечения ректоцеле // Рос. журн. гастроэнтерол., гепатол., колопроктол. 2013. № 4. С. 79-85.
4. Шехтер А. Б., Гуллер А. Е., Истранов Л. П. и др. Морфология коллагеновых матриксов для тканевой инженерии : (биосовместимость, биодеградация, тканевая реакция) // Арх. пат. 2015. Т. 77, № 6. С. 29-38.
5. Altman D., Falconer C. Perioperative morbidity using transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair // Obstet. Gynecol. 2007. № 109. P. 303-308.
6. Altman D., Zetterstrom J., Lopez A. B. et al. Functional and anatomic outcome after transvaginal rectocele repair using collagen mesh: a prospective study // Dis. Colon Rectum. 2005. № 48. P. 1233-1242.
7. Boccasanta P., Venturi M., Calabro G. et al. Which surgical approach for rectocele? : A multicentric report from Italian coloproctologists // Tech. Coloproctol. 2001. № 5. P. 149-156.
8. Carey M., Higgs P., Goh J. et al. Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse : a randomised controlled trial // BJOG. 2009. № 116. P. 1380-1386.
9. Clark A. L., Gregory T., Smith V. J. Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence // Amer. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003. № 189. P. 1261-1267.
10. Dell J. R., O`Kelley K. R. PelviSoft Biomesh augmentation of rectocele repair : the initial clinical experience in 35 patients // Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005. № 16. P. 44-47.
11. De Tayrac R., Deffieux X., Gervaise A. et al. Long-term anatomical and functional assessment of trans-vaginal cystocele repair using a tension-free polypropylene mesh // Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006. № 17. P. 483-488.
12. De Tayrac R., Picone O., Chauveaude-Lambling A., Fernandez H. A 2-years anatomical and functional assessment of transvaginal rectocele repair using of polypropylene mesh // Ibid. 2006. № 17. P. 100-105.
13. Domingo S., Alamá P., Ruiz N. et al. Diagnosis, management and prognosis of vaginal erosion after transobturator suburethral tape procedure using a nonwoven thermally bonded polypropylene mesh // J. Urol. 2005. № 173. P. 1627-1630.
14. Drossman D. A., Patrick D. L., Whitehead W.E. et al. Further validation of the IBS-QOL : a disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire // Amer. J. Gastroenterol. 2000. № 95. P. 999-1007.
15. Dwyer P.L., O`Reilly B. A. Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse with Atrium polypropylene mesh // Brit. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2004. № 111. P. 831-836.
16. Fatton B., Amblard J., Debodinance P. et al. Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse : preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift technique)-a case series multicentric study // Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007. № 18. P. 743-752.
17. Graul E., Hurst B. An alternative approach to the repair of cystoceles and rectoceles // Obstet. Gynecol. 2001. № 97 (Suppl. 1). P. 48.
18. Jia X., Glazener C., Mowatt G. et al. Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse : systematic review and meta-analysis // BJOG. 2008. № 115. P. 1350-1361.
19. Jia X., Glazener C., Mowatt G. et al. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse // Int. Urogynecol. J. 2010. № 21. P. 1413-1431.
20. Kohli N., Miklos J. R. Dermal graft-augmented rectocele repair // Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003. № 14. P. 146-149.
21. Lamber B., Grossi J. V., Manna B. B. et al. May polyester with collagen coating mesh decrease the rate of intraperitoneal adhesions in incisional hernia repair? // Arq. Bras. Cir. Dig. 2013. № 26. P. 13-17.
22. Mercer-Jones M. A., Sprowson A., Varma J. S. Outcome after trans perineal mesh repair of rectocele : a case series // Dis. Colon Rectum. 2004. № 47. P. 864-868.
23. Milani R., Salvatore S., Soligo M. Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh // Brit. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2005. № 112. P. 107-111.
24. Patel H., Ostergard D. R., Sternschuss G. Polypropylene mesh and the host response // Int. Urogynecol. J. 2012. № 23. P. 669- 679.
25. Smart N. J., Mercer-Jones M. A. Functional outcome after trans-perineal rectocele repair with porcine dermal collagen implant // Dis Colon Rectum. 2007. № 50. P. 1422-1427.
26. Sternschuss G., Ostergard D. R., Patel H. Post-implantation alterations of polypropylene in the human // J. Urol. 2012. Vol. 188. P. 27-32.
27. Sung V.W., Rardin C. R., Raker C. A. Porcine subintestinal submucosal graft augmentation for rectocele repair : a randomized controlled trial // Obstet Gynecol. 2012. № 119. P. 125-133.
28. Tjandra J. J., Ooi B. S., Tang C. L. Transanal repair of rectocele corrects obstructed defecation if it is not associated with anismus // Dis. Colon Rectum. 1999. № 42. P. 1544-1550.
29. Whiteside J. L., Weber A. M., Meyn L. A., Walters M. D. Risk factors for prolapse reccurence after vaginal repair // Amer. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004. № 191. P. 1533-1538.
30. Winters J. C. InteXen tissue processing and laboratory study // Int. Urogynecology J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. 2006. Vol. 17 (Suppl. 1). P. S34-S38.
Review
For citations:
Shelygin Yu.A., Biryukov O.M., Titov A.Yu., Mudrov A.A., Zadchin G.V. Application of synthetic and biological implants for fixation of rectovaginal septum in rectocele repair. Grekov's Bulletin of Surgery. 2017;176(4):51-54. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2017-176-4-51-54
Views:
626
Email this article 