Aarhus University Seal

Dansk

You are here: » Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured R...

About Aarhus University

Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaper › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study. / Hidaka, Jin; Elfeki, Hossam; Duelund-Jakobsen, Jakob et al.
In: EClinicalMedicine, Vol. 16, 01.11.2019, p. 18-22.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaper › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Hidaka, J, Elfeki, H, Duelund-Jakobsen, J, Laurberg, S & Lundby, L 2019, 'Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study', EClinicalMedicine, vol. 16, pp. 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.08.014

APA

Hidaka, J., Elfeki, H., Duelund-Jakobsen, J., Laurberg, S., & Lundby, L. (2019). Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study. EClinicalMedicine, 16, 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.08.014

CBE

Hidaka J, Elfeki H, Duelund-Jakobsen J, Laurberg S, Lundby L. 2019. Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study. EClinicalMedicine. 16:18-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.08.014

MLA

Hidaka, Jin et al. "Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study". EClinicalMedicine. 2019, 16. 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.08.014

Vancouver

Hidaka J, Elfeki H, Duelund-Jakobsen J, Laurberg S, Lundby L. Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Nov 1;16:18-22. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.08.014

Author

Hidaka, Jin ; Elfeki, Hossam ; Duelund-Jakobsen, Jakob et al. / Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse : Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study. In: EClinicalMedicine. 2019 ; Vol. 16. pp. 18-22.

Bibtex

@article{b13de10b3f014455b5d591806710f661,
title = "Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study",
abstract = "Background: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for rectal prolapse has been implemented to reduce postoperative bowel symptoms. The preoperative-to-postoperative change in a double-blinded, randomized study comparing it to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) found no significant difference between the two procedures after one year. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term functional outcomes. Methods: From November 2006–January 2014, 75 patients were randomized to LVMR (n = 37) or LPSR (n = 38). In March 2017, questionnaires containing constipation symptom score (PAC-SYM), quality of life score (PAC-QoL), obstructed defecation score (ODS), Cleveland clinic constipation and incontinence scores (CCCS, CCIS) were mailed to all the patients included in the RCT. Prolapse recurrences and mesh complications were recorded. Finding: Sixty-nine patients were available for long-term follow-up. Questionnaires were completed by 64 patients (94.4%). The median follow-up was 6.1 years. The total PAC-QoL was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.26 (0.14–0.83) compared to the LPSR group 0.93(0.32–1.61)(P = 0.008). The total PAC-SYM was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.5 (0.21–0.87) compared to the LPSR group 1.0 (0.5–1.5)(P = 0.031). Except for CCIS, the ODS and the CCCS significantly favored the LVMR group at six years (P = 0.011 & 0.017). Only three(8.82%) patients in the LVMR group developed recurrence compared to seven(23.33%) in the LPSR group (P = 0.111). Interpretation: The long-term functional outcome after LVMR is superior to that after LPSR. Larger multicenter studies are warranted. Funding: None.",
keywords = "Functional outcome, Long-term follow-up, Posterior sutured rectopexy, Randomized controlled trial, Rectal prolapse, Ventral mesh rectopexy",
author = "Jin Hidaka and Hossam Elfeki and Jakob Duelund-Jakobsen and S{\o}ren Laurberg and Lilli Lundby",
year = "2019",
month = nov,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.08.014",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "18--22",
journal = "EClinicalMedicine",
publisher = "The Lancet Publishing Group",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Functional Outcome after Laparoscopic Posterior Sutured Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse

T2 - Six-year Follow-up of a Double-blind, Randomized Single-center Study

AU - Hidaka, Jin

AU - Elfeki, Hossam

AU - Duelund-Jakobsen, Jakob

AU - Laurberg, Søren

AU - Lundby, Lilli

PY - 2019/11/1

Y1 - 2019/11/1

N2 - Background: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for rectal prolapse has been implemented to reduce postoperative bowel symptoms. The preoperative-to-postoperative change in a double-blinded, randomized study comparing it to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) found no significant difference between the two procedures after one year. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term functional outcomes. Methods: From November 2006–January 2014, 75 patients were randomized to LVMR (n = 37) or LPSR (n = 38). In March 2017, questionnaires containing constipation symptom score (PAC-SYM), quality of life score (PAC-QoL), obstructed defecation score (ODS), Cleveland clinic constipation and incontinence scores (CCCS, CCIS) were mailed to all the patients included in the RCT. Prolapse recurrences and mesh complications were recorded. Finding: Sixty-nine patients were available for long-term follow-up. Questionnaires were completed by 64 patients (94.4%). The median follow-up was 6.1 years. The total PAC-QoL was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.26 (0.14–0.83) compared to the LPSR group 0.93(0.32–1.61)(P = 0.008). The total PAC-SYM was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.5 (0.21–0.87) compared to the LPSR group 1.0 (0.5–1.5)(P = 0.031). Except for CCIS, the ODS and the CCCS significantly favored the LVMR group at six years (P = 0.011 & 0.017). Only three(8.82%) patients in the LVMR group developed recurrence compared to seven(23.33%) in the LPSR group (P = 0.111). Interpretation: The long-term functional outcome after LVMR is superior to that after LPSR. Larger multicenter studies are warranted. Funding: None.

AB - Background: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for rectal prolapse has been implemented to reduce postoperative bowel symptoms. The preoperative-to-postoperative change in a double-blinded, randomized study comparing it to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (LPSR) found no significant difference between the two procedures after one year. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term functional outcomes. Methods: From November 2006–January 2014, 75 patients were randomized to LVMR (n = 37) or LPSR (n = 38). In March 2017, questionnaires containing constipation symptom score (PAC-SYM), quality of life score (PAC-QoL), obstructed defecation score (ODS), Cleveland clinic constipation and incontinence scores (CCCS, CCIS) were mailed to all the patients included in the RCT. Prolapse recurrences and mesh complications were recorded. Finding: Sixty-nine patients were available for long-term follow-up. Questionnaires were completed by 64 patients (94.4%). The median follow-up was 6.1 years. The total PAC-QoL was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.26 (0.14–0.83) compared to the LPSR group 0.93(0.32–1.61)(P = 0.008). The total PAC-SYM was significantly lower in the LVMR group 0.5 (0.21–0.87) compared to the LPSR group 1.0 (0.5–1.5)(P = 0.031). Except for CCIS, the ODS and the CCCS significantly favored the LVMR group at six years (P = 0.011 & 0.017). Only three(8.82%) patients in the LVMR group developed recurrence compared to seven(23.33%) in the LPSR group (P = 0.111). Interpretation: The long-term functional outcome after LVMR is superior to that after LPSR. Larger multicenter studies are warranted. Funding: None.

KW - Functional outcome

KW - Long-term follow-up

KW - Posterior sutured rectopexy

KW - Randomized controlled trial

KW - Rectal prolapse

KW - Ventral mesh rectopexy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071399649&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.08.014

DO - 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.08.014

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 31832616

AN - SCOPUS:85071399649

VL - 16

SP - 18

EP - 22

JO - EClinicalMedicine

JF - EClinicalMedicine

ER -