{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020069204152249134, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004844290657439446, 'mean_word_length': 5.788732394366197, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Laparoscopic Suture versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for the surgical Treatment of Internal Rectal Prolapse

: Background; Over the last decades, numerous procedures have been proposed to treat rectal prolapse (RP) often with contrasting results, underlying the continuing search for the ideal surgical treatment. This should correct RP and/or rectal intussusception (RI) and derived symptoms. This study aims to evaluate and compare the functional outcome after laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy for the surgical Treatment of Internal Rectal Prolapse. Subjects and methods; This was prospective study, carried out in General Surgery Department of Benha University Hospital, on 30 patients with internal rectal prolapse who were randomly divided into 2 groups: (Group A): 15 patients who were proposed to do Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and (Group B): 15 patients who were proposed to do Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy. Results; Ventral Mesh Rectopexy operation time was highly significantly longer than Laparoscopic Suture. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding intraoperative complications except one case of bleeding in LSR group. Conclusion; Both Laparoscopic Mesh Rectopexy and Suture Rectopexy are feasible and reliable methods for the treatment of internal rectal prolapse associated with low recurrence rate, improvement of ODS symptoms and better anorectal function.