Recurrence and Bowel Function After Laparoscopic Vaginorectopexy, a Modified Anterior Rectopexy
NCT ID: NCT06330857
Last Updated: 2025-11-28
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
25 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2002-05-28
2025-10-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy Combined With or Without Stapled Trans-anal Rectal Resection for Obstructed Defecation Syndrome
NCT03060330
Efficacy of Transvaginal Repair for Rectocele
NCT03944720
The Effect of Pessary Post Vaginal Prolapse Repair, for One Month, to Reduce the Recurrence Rate of Prolapse
NCT03056586
Recurrence of Dyschezia in Rectal Prolapse, Rectocele and Elytrocele
NCT04627610
An International Double Cohort Study to Compare Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy With Laparoscopic Resection Rectopexy
NCT01595412
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
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)
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NA
SINGLE_GROUP
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Surgical intervention
Operated with the intervention, ie vaginorectopexy
Laparoscopic vaginorectopexy
Modified laparoscopic anterior rectopexy for multiple pelvic prolapses
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Laparoscopic vaginorectopexy
Modified laparoscopic anterior rectopexy for multiple pelvic prolapses
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Sahlgrenska University Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Bjarne Melvas
Consultant
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Lars Borjesson, Professor
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Göteborg University
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
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.
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.
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.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Dnr2021-06921-02
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.