Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 23, 2026
03:30
Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
Published on: October 25, 2024
2.6K
Transperineal rectocele repair: a systematic review
Eleanor F Zimmermann1, Richard S Hayes2, Ian R Daniels2
1Urology, Alexandra Hospital, Redditch, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, UK.
ANZ Journal of Surgery
|September 6, 2017
Summary
Transperineal rectocele repair is effective for symptom improvement with complication rates similar to transanal repair. More high-quality data are needed to compare mesh augmentation techniques.
Area of Science:
- Pelvic floor reconstructive surgery
- Gastroenterology
- Gynecologic surgery
Background:
- Transperineal rectocele repair is a surgical technique for rectocele treatment.
- This approach, with or without mesh, is hypothesized to offer fewer complications than other methods.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the long-term success and complication rates of transperineal rectocele repair.
- To compare transperineal repair outcomes with alternative surgical approaches.
Main Methods:
- A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed and Embase.
- Included studies published between 1994 and 2016, detailing transperineal rectocele repair outcomes or comparisons.
- Primary outcomes included reported complications and functional outcome scores.
Main Results:
- Fourteen studies involving 566 patients were analyzed.
- Complication rates were 12.3% for both transanal and transperineal rectocele repairs.
- Insufficient data exist to compare mesh versus non-mesh or biological versus synthetic mesh augmentation.
Conclusions:
- Transperineal rectocele repair effectively improves symptoms and has a comparable complication profile to transanal repair.
- While mesh augmentation is increasingly used, high-quality comparative data are lacking for definitive conclusions on surgical approach efficacy.
