RECTOSACROUTEROPEXY vs. WELLS

A Study of the Efficacy of Surgical Methods When Using Prolene Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women

The goal of this clinical trial was to compare two surgical techniques in female patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The main questions it aimed to answer were:

1. Does modified rectosacrouteropexy with pelvic peritonization improve postoperative anatomical outcomes compared with conventional Wells rectopexy?
2. Does modified rectosacrouteropexy with pelvic peritonization improve postoperative functional outcomes compared with conventional Wells rectopexy?

Researchers compared modified rectosacrouteropexy with pelvic peritonization with conventional Wells rectopexy to assess postoperative recurrence, complications, anorectal manometry, defecography findings, and pelvic floor symptom scores. Participants underwent one of the assigned surgical procedures and were followed after surgery with clinical assessment and pelvic floor function testing.

This is a prospective randomized comparative study conducted at Azerbaijan Medical University. Female patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse are assigned to modified rectosacrouteropexy with pelvic peritonization or conventional Wells rectopexy. Participants are followed for postoperative anatomical and functional outcomes, including recurrence, complications, anorectal manometry findings, defecography findings, and pelvic floor symptom scores.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Female patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse Patients scheduled for surgical treatment with modified rectosacrouteropexy with pelvic peritonization Ability to complete postoperative follow-up assessments

Exclusion Criteria:

• Male patients Patients without full-thickness rectal prolapse Contraindication to surgery or anesthesia Severe uncontrolled medical condition that could interfere with participation or follow-up