No rectopexy versus rectopexy following rectal mobilization for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial

The Predictive Risk Factor of Postoperative Recurrence Following Altemeier's and Delorme's Procedures for Full-thickness Rectal Prolapse: An Analysis of 127 Japanese Patients in a Single Institution

Objectives

We aimed to identify risk factors for postoperative recurrence (PR) after Altemeier's and Delorme's procedures for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP).

Methods

We enrolled 127 patients who underwent Altemeier's and Delorme's procedures for FTRP between April 2008 and September 2021. We divided the 127 patients into recurrence and non-recurrence groups and conducted univariate and multivariate analyses. We used six independent variables: age, body mass index (BMI), history of surgical repair for FTRP, coexistence of prolapse in other organs, poor fixation of the rectum on defecography before surgery, length of the prolapsed rectum, and type of surgical procedure (Altemeier's or Delorme's procedures).

Results

PR developed in 51 (40.1%) patients during a mean follow-up period of 453 (range, 9-3616) days. Comparing the recurrence group (n=51) with the non-recurrence group (n=76), significant difference was observed regarding the coexistence of prolapse in other organs (p=0.017) in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, significant differences were observed in BMI (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.030-1.350, p=0.020), coexistence of prolapse in other organs (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.200-9.500, p=0.021), length of the prolapsed rectum (OR 1.030, 95% CI 1.010-1.060, p=0.015), poor fixity of the rectum on defecography (OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.129-0.852, p=0.022), and surgical procedures (OR 0.192, 95% CI 0.064-0.573, p=0.003).

Conclusions

The study suggested that increasing BMI, coexistence of prolapse in other organs, length of the prolapsed rectum, poor fixation of the rectum on defecography before surgery, and types of surgical procedure might be risk factors of PR after perineal surgery for FTRP.

Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Several different procedures have been described for surgical treatment of rectal prolapse and consensus on the optimal approach has not been reached. The Swedish Rectal Prolapse Trial was performed with the aim to compare the outcomes after the most common surgical approaches to rectal prolapse.

METHOD

A multicentre randomized trial was conducted from 2000 to 2009. Patients were randomized between a perineal or an abdominal approach for correction of rectal prolapse (randomization A) if eligible for any procedures. Patients considered unsuitable for random allocation were only included in randomizations B or C. Patients in randomization B (perineal group) were randomized to Delorme's or Altemeier's procedures and those in randomization C (abdominal group) to suture rectopexy or resection rectopexy. Primary outcomes were bowel function and quality of life, measured using Wexner incontinence score and RAND-36, and secondary outcomes were complications and recurrence at 3 years.

RESULTS

During the study period, 134 patients were randomized: 18 in randomization A group, 80 in randomization B group and 54 in randomization C group; of these, 122 patients underwent surgery. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. Improvements in Wexner and RAND-36 scores were seen but with no significant difference between the groups. Health change scores were significantly improved from baseline up to 1 year after surgery (P < 0.001). At 3 years, recurrence rates were two of seven patients for abdominal versus five of eight patients for perineal approach (P = 0.315), 18 of 31 patients (58 per cent) for Delorme's versus 15 of 30 patients (50 per cent) for Altemeier's (P = 0.611) and four of 19 patients (21 per cent) for suture rectopexy versus two of 21 patients (10 per cent) for resection rectopexy (P = 0.398). There were no significant differences regarding postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

For all procedures, significant improvements from baseline in health change scores were noted after surgery. Recurrence rates were higher than previously reported. Registration number: NCT04893642 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.

Longer Prolapsed Rectum Length Increases Recurrence Risk After Delorme's Procedure

Purpose

Risk factors for recurrence of rectal prolapse after surgery remain unclear. Delorme’s procedure is often selected for relatively small-sized rectal prolapse, but there are few reports discussing the association between prolapsed rectum length and prolapse recurrence after Delorme’s procedure. We hypothesized that patients with longer rectal prolapses are at a higher risk of recurrence after Delorme’s procedure.

Methods

The study population comprised patients with rectal prolapse who underwent Delorme’s procedure between January 2014 and December 2019 at Tokyo Yamate Medical Center. We extracted data on patient age, sex, body mass index, previous history of anal surgery, previous history of surgery for rectal prolapse, and length of prolapse, to identify risk factors for prolapse recurrence.

Results

Altogether, 96 patients were eligible for analysis. The median length of the prolapsed rectum was 3.0 cm (range, 1.0–6.6 cm). Twenty-four patients (25.0%) experienced recurrence after Delorme’s procedure after a median of 7.5 months (interquartile range, 3.2–20.9 months). Multivariate analysis revealed that longer prolapsed rectum length increased the risk of recurrence after Delorme’s procedure (hazard ratio, 6.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.83–21.50; P<0.001).

Conclusion

The length of the prolapsed rectum should be measured before Delorme’s procedure for rectal prolapse, because length is associated with a risk of recurrence after the surgery.

Simplified Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy for Idiopathic Rectal Prolapse In Children: Technique and Results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic suture rectopexy is safe and effective treatment option for pediatric rectal prolapse. We performed this study to compare the outcome of modified laparoscopic suture rectopexy (MLSR) versus Classical Laparoscopic suture rectopexy (CLSR).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was conducted between June 2015 to May 2019 including all the patients with persistent rectal prolapse who underwent surgery managed by either MLSR (Group A) or CLSR (Group B). The groups were compared for constipation, operative time, blood loss, length of stay, postoperative complications.

RESULTS

19 patients from MLSR and 22 patients from CLSR were evaluated. The mean operative time in MLSR group was 41.5 ± 6.2 min which was significantly lesser than CLSR group with a mean operative time of 78.6 ± 14.2 (p = 0.001). The blood loss was also less in MLSR group compared to CLSR group (p = 0.013). At three months of follow up, the constipation was less in MLSR group compared to CLSR group (p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

The modification makes the procedure technically easy, minimizes the chances of complications and retaining all the advantages of suture rectopexy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Consensus Statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse, rectal procidentia, "complete" prolapse or "third-degree" prolapse is the full-thickness prolapse of the rectal wall through the anal canal and has a significant impact on quality of life. The incidence of rectal prolapse has been estimated to be approximately 2.5 per 100,000 inhabitants with a clear predominance among elderly women. The aim of this consensus statement was to provide evidence-based data to allow an individualized and appropriate management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse. The strategy used to search for evidence was based on application of electronic sources such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Review Library, CINAHL and EMBASE. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Gastroenterology's Chronic Constipation Task Force. Five evidence levels were defined. The recommendations were graded A, B, and C.

Trends in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a population analysis

PURPOSE

Rectal prolapse is a common condition, with conflicting opinions on optimal surgical management. Existing literature is predominantly composed of case series, with a dearth of evidence demonstrating current, real-world practice. This study investigated recent national trends in management of rectal prolapse in the Republic of Ireland (ROI).

METHODS

This population analysis used a national database to identify patients admitted in the ROI primarily for the management of rectal prolapse, as defined by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10). Demographics, procedures, comorbidities, and outcomes were obtained for patients admitted from 2005 to 2015 inclusive.

RESULTS

There were 2648 admissions with a primary diagnosis of rectal prolapse; 39.3% underwent surgical correction. The majority were treated with either a perineal resection (47.2%) or an abdominal rectopexy ± resection (45.1%). The population-adjusted rate of operative intervention increased over the study period, from 25 to 42 per million (p < 0.001), with no change in the mean age of patients over time (p = 0.229). The application of a laparoscopic approach increased over time (p = 0.001). Patients undergoing an abdominal rectopexy were younger than those undergoing a perineal procedure (64.1 ± 17.3 versus 75.2 ± 15.5 years, p < 0.001) despite having a similar Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.097). The mortality rate for elective repair was 0.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the popularization of ventral mesh rectopexy over the study period, perineal resection Delorme's procedure remains the most common procedure employed for the correction of rectal prolapse in the ROI, with specific approach determined by age.

Abdominal Approaches to Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a debilitating condition with a complex etiology. Symptoms are most commonly prolapse of the rectum and pain with bowel movements or straining, with worsening fecal incontinence over time due to progressive stretching of the anal sphincters. Physical findings are fairly consistent from patient to patient-most notably diastasis of the levator ani muscles, deep pouch of Douglas, redundant sigmoid colon, a mobile mesorectum, and occasionally a solitary rectal ulcer. Evaluation includes a physical exam or imaging demonstrating the prolapse, and evaluating for other causes of pelvic floor dysfunction. Multiple surgical repairs are available, but treatment must be individualized based on patient symptoms and the presence or absence of constipation or other pelvic floor disorders. Mesh repairs have shown promising results, but carry the added risks of mesh erosion, infection, and mesh migration. The optimal repair has not been clearly demonstrated at this time.

Evolution of male rectal prolapse surgery and initial experience of robotic rectopexy in men

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has proven benefit in the treatment of external rectal prolapse and symptomatic internal rectal prolapse in women. However, there is a recurrence rate of 4-50% depending on indication. Some of this recurrence is attributable to persistent lateral and posterior prolapses. Modifications of LVMR (modified Orr-Loygue rectopexies) describe an additional narrow posterior rectal mesh fixed to the mesorectal fat, which is inherently insecure. Additional complications in men include sexual dysfunction caused by nerve damage from the ventral rectal dissection. There is one case series in men, published by a surgeon with an unusually large practice, showing LVMR to have a good success rate with low rates of sexual dysfunction. Other series have contained small numbers of men, but subgroup analysis to determine success and complication rates is not possible. Robotic surgery is more precise than laparoscopic surgery, allows stereotactic vision, and has a stable platform. We have developed a robotic modified Orr-Loygue rectopexy in an attempt to deal with the persistent components of posterior rectal prolapse by placing a mesh posteriorly through a narrow dissection and securing the mesh to the distal rectal muscle tube. Mesh-to-muscle fixation is more secure than mesh-to-mesorectal fat fixation. The robotic platform also improves the accuracy of ventral dissection and reduces the risk of sexual dysfunction in men. Our initial results indicate that robotic modified Orr-Loygue rectopexy is a safe and feasible option for rectal prolapse in men, with no more complications or recurrences than the best published outcomes for LVMR.

Recurrence of rectal prolapse following rectopexy: a pooled analysis of 532 patients

AIM

The study was designed to address the unanswered question of the influence of the extent of rectal mobilization, the type of rectal fixation and the surgical access (open vs laparoscopic) on recurrence rates following abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP).

METHOD

Individual patient data were pooled and data merging was performed following comparison of variable definitions to ensure similarity in definitions. Recurrence after rectopexy was defined as the presence of FTRP on physical examination. The impact of categorical factors on recurrence was assessed using Fisher's exact and the chi-squared tests. Recurrence-free survival curves were generated for patients and differences in time to recurrence were compared using the log rank test. Factors passing univariate screening with a P value < 0.1 were included in a multivariate model.

RESULTS

After data matching and merging, 532 patients were included. The duration of follow-up ranged from 12 to 235 months. There were 46 (8.6%) recurrences at a median follow-up of 60 months. Mean age was 53.6 ± 17 years, 359 (67.5%) were female, the mean length of external prolapse was 6.3 ± 4 cm, and previous abdominal surgery had taken place in 33.7%. Four variables were identified on initial univariate screening as being related to recurrence. They included a history of incontinence (P = 0.09), constipation (P = 0.018), the extent of rectal mobilization (P = 0.004) and the role of sigmoid resection (P = 0.057). Using multivariate analysis, only the degree of mobilization was independently associated with recurrence (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Circumferential rectal mobilization during rectopexy was associated with a decreased long-term recurrence rate. The type of rectal fixation and the type of surgical access did not influence recurrence.

Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults

BACKGROUND

Complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse is a lifestyle-altering disability that commonly affects older people. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying pelvic floor defects in full-thickness rectal prolapse reflects the lack of consensus regarding the best operation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different surgical repairs for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register up to 3 February 2015; it contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as well as trials identified through handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We also searched EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1947 to February 2015) and PubMed (January 1950 to December 2014), and we specifically handsearched theBritish Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to June 2014), Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to June 2014) and Colorectal Diseases (January 2000 to June 2014), as well as the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meetings (January 2000 to December 2014). Finally, we handsearched reference lists of all relevant articles to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgery for managing full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The four primary outcome measures were the number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse, number of patients with faecal incontinence and number of patients with constipation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1007 participants in this third review update. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery, and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy. One new trial compared rectopexy versus rectal mobilisation only (no rectopexy), performed with either open or laparoscopic surgery. One new trial compared different techniques used in perineal surgery, and another included three comparisons: abdominal versus perineal surgery, resection versus no resection rectopexy in abdominal surgery and different techniques used in perineal surgery.The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. Given these caveats, there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches are most effective. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more postoperative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation. Recurrence of full-thickness prolapse was greater for mobilisation of the rectum only compared with rectopexy. There were no differences in quality of life for patients who underwent the different kinds of prolapse surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The lack of high quality evidence on different techniques, together with the small sample size of included trials and their methodological weaknesses, severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Longer follow-up with current studies and larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence base and to define the optimum surgical treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and pelvic floor disorders

Pelvic floor disorders are different dysfunctions of gynaecological, urinary or anorectal organs, which can present as incontinence, outlet-obstruction and organ prolapse or as a combination of these symptoms. Pelvic floor disorders affect a substantial amount of people, predominantly women. Transabdominal procedures play a major role in the treatment of these disorders. With the development of new techniques established open procedures are now increasingly performed laparoscopically. Operation techniques consist of various rectopexies with suture, staples or meshes eventually combined with sigmoid resection. The different approaches need to be measured by their operative and functional outcome and their recurrence rates. Although these operations are performed frequently a comparison and evaluation of the different methods is difficult, as most of the used outcome measures in the available studies have not been standardised and data from randomised studies comparing these outcome measures directly are lacking. Therefore evidence based guidelines do not exist. Currently the laparoscopic approach with ventral mesh rectopexy or resection rectopexy is the two most commonly used techniques. Observational and retrospective studies show good functional results, a low rate of complications and a low recurrence rate. As high quality evidence is missing, an individualized approach is recommend for every patient considering age, individual health status and the underlying morphological and functional disorders.

Ventral colporectopexy for overt rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (VR) with the use of prosthesis has been advocated for both overt rectal prolapse (ORP) and obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS). The present study reviews the short-term and functional results of laparoscopic VR.

METHOD

A search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid and Cochrane databases on all studies reporting on VR for ORP, ODS and other anatomical abnormalities of the pelvic floor from 2004 until February 2013. No language restrictions were made. All studies on VR were reviewed systematically. The main outcomes were intra-operative complications, conversion, procedure duration, short-term mortality and morbidity, length of stay, recurrence of ORP, recurrence of anatomical disorder, faecal incontinence and constipation, quality of life (QoL) score and patient satisfaction. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by three observers.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 1460 patients were eligible for analysis. The conversion rate ranged from 0 to 14.3%. No mortality was reported. The immediate postoperative morbidity rate was 8.6%. Length of stay ranged from 1 to 7 days. A significant improvement in constipation and incontinence symptoms was observed in the postoperative period for both ORP and ODS (chi-square test, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic VR is a safe and effective procedure for ORP and ODS. Longer follow-up is required, and studies comparing VR with standard rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection are not yet available.

Case-matched series of a non-cross-linked biologic versus non-absorbable mesh in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is an emerging technique for selected patients with rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome. Data are insufficient to conclude which type of mesh affords the greatest benefit. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of LVR using a non-cross-linked biologic versus a permanent mesh.

METHODS

Twenty nine cases of LVR with permanent mesh were matched based on age and surgical indication with an equal number of patients using biologic mesh. Cases were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Symptom resolution, patient satisfaction and recurrence of prolapse were measured among those who underwent LVR with either a biologic (Biodesign(®), Cook Medical) or polypropylene mesh.

RESULTS

Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, surgical indication and primary symptoms were not different between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 15.4 months, all patients reported being either completely or partially satisfied. Rates of complete or partial symptom resolution (p = 0.26) or satisfaction (p = 0.27) did not differ between groups. After LVR, similar rates of additional procedures were performed in the biologic (21 %) and the permanent (28 %) mesh group. Among patients with full-thickness prolapse (n = 33), there were five cases (15 %) of recurrence, one in the biologic group and four in the permanent mesh group (p = 0.37). There were no mesh-related complications in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

LVR using a non-cross-linked biologic mesh appears to have comparable rates of symptom improvement and patient satisfaction in the short term. Longer follow-up will be required to determine if prolapse recurrence depends on mesh type.

Ten-year follow up after laparoscopic suture rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse

AIM

Studies have shown that recurrence rates of full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) 5 years after surgery can quadruple at 10 years. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic suture rectopexy for FTRP on recurrence rates and functional outcome at a median follow up of 10 years.

METHOD

Prospectively collected data for patients who underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy for FTRP between 1993 and 2006 were analysed. Laparoscopic rectopexy consisted of circumferential mobilization of the rectum down to the levator followed by suture suspension to promontory. Patients with preexisting constipation or who were unfit for general anaesthesia were not included. Incontinence, quality of life and constipation were assessed by validated scores. Recurrence-free curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-nine patients with a median age of 62 (15-93) years including 174 women and five men underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy. There was no mortality. The 30-day complication rate was 4% (partial transection of the left ureter, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, urinary retention, superficial surgical site infection). Data on 172 patients (96%) were available at follow up. There were 10 recurrences of FTRP at 5-year follow up giving a crude recurrence rate of 6%. The actuarial 10-year recurrence rate was 20% (95% CI, 10.8-20.1). Follow-up continence (P < 0.0001) and quality of life were better than preoperatively: lifestyle (P < 0.001), coping (P < 0.001), self-perception (P < 0.005), embarrassment (P < 0.06). Constipation was unchanged.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic suture rectopexy led to few complications, a recurrence rate of 20%, improved continence and quality of life with no worsening of constipation at 10 years.

Laparoscopy for pelvic floor disorders

Surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders has significantly evolved during the last decade, with increasing understanding of anatomy, pathophysiology and the minimally-invasive 'revolution' of laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic pelvic floor repair requires a thorough knowledge of pelvic floor anatomy and its supportive components before repair of defective anatomy is possible. Several surgical procedures have been introduced and applied to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. Transabdominal procedures include a variety of rectopexies with the use of sutures or prosthesis and with or without resection of redundant sigmoid colon. Unfortunately there is lack of one generally accepted standard treatment technique. This article will focus on recent advances in the management of pelvic floor disorders affecting defecation, with a brief overview of contemporary concepts in pelvic floor anatomy and different laparoscopic treatment options.

Consensus statement AIGO/SICCR diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation (part II: treatment)

The second part of the Consensus Statement of the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Italian Society of Colo-Rectal Surgery reports on the treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation. There is no evidence that increasing fluid intake and physical activity can relieve the symptoms of chronic constipation. Patients with normal-transit constipation should increase their fibre intake through their diet or with commercial fibre. Osmotic laxatives may be effective in patients who do not respond to fibre supplements. Stimulant laxatives should be reserved for patients who do not respond to osmotic laxatives. Controlled trials have shown that serotoninergic enterokinetic agents, such as prucalopride, and prosecretory agents, such as lubiprostone, are effective in the treatment of patients with chronic constipation. Surgery is sometimes necessary. Total colectomy with ileorectostomy may be considered in patients with slow-transit constipation and inertia coli who are resistant to medical therapy and who do not have defecatory disorders, generalised motility disorders or psychological disorders. Randomised controlled trials have established the efficacy of rehabilitative treatment in dys-synergic defecation. Many surgical procedures may be used to treat obstructed defecation in patients with acquired anatomical defects, but none is considered to be the gold standard. Surgery should be reserved for selected patients with an impaired quality of life. Obstructed defecation is often associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Surgery with the placement of prostheses is replacing fascial surgery in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, but the efficacy and safety of such procedures have not yet been established.

Incontinence in full-thickness rectal prolapse: low level of improvement after laparoscopic rectopexy

AIM

The study aimed to quantify incontinence before and after laparoscopic rectopexy in patients suffering from rectal prolapse.

METHOD

Eighty-five patients underwent laparoscopic rectopexy to treat rectal prolapse between 2003 and 2009. Symptomatic and functional data were collected prospectively before and after surgery by self-administered questionnaires including the Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence Score (CCIS) and constipation, gastrointestinal quality of life and urinary incontinence questionnaires. Incontinence was considered to be present when the CCIS remained at ≥ 5 after surgery.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up period of 36 months after surgery, 83% of the patients reported good to excellent results. Continence was improved in 58 (68%), with a significant decrease in the continence score (-3.4 ± 5.8, P = 0.001). However, 50 (58.9%) patients remained incontinent: 47 (55%) reported urge incontinence and 27 (32%) had passive leakage. Incontinence for liquid stool, incontinence for solid stool and the need for protection was seen in 43 (51%), 35 (41%) and 43 (51%) patients. Manometry, defaecography and ultrasonography were not associated with any improvement. In contrast, the patients' average age (60.2 ± 15.8 vs 46.9 ± 15.5 years; P = 0.003), symptom duration before surgery (58.1 ± 70.1 vs 29.5 ± 33.3 months; P = 0.011), preoperative urinary incontinence score (10.7 ± 10.8 vs 4.2 ± 5.7; P = 0.0131) and faecal incontinence score (12.9 ± 4.9 vs 7.1 ± 6; P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in patients suffering from postoperative incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Despite some continence improvement in two-thirds of patients who underwent surgery for rectal prolapse, the level of improvement remained low in more than half of the patients.

Rectal prolapse

Optimal management of rectal prolapse requires multiple clinical considerations with respect to treatment options, particularly for surgeons who must counsel and give realistic expectations to rectal prolapse patients. Rectal prolapse outcomes are good with respect to recurrence. Although posterior rectopexy remains most popular in the United States, increasingly surgeons perform ventral rectopexy to repair rectal prolapse. Functional outcomes vary and are fair after rectal prolapse repair. Although incarceration with rectal prolapse is rare, it is potentially life threatening and requires immediate and effective measures to adequately address in the acute setting.

Consensus statement AIGO/SICCR diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation (Part II: Treatment)

The second part of the Consensus Statement of the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Italian Society of Colo-Rectal Surgery reports on the treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation. There is no evidence that increasing fluid intake and physical activity can relieve the symptoms of chronic constipation. Patients with normal-transit constipation should increase their fibre intake through their diet or with commercial fibre. Osmotic laxatives may be effective in patients who do not respond to fibre supplements. Stimulant laxatives should be reserved for patients who do not respond to osmotic laxatives. Controlled trials have shown that serotoninergic enterokinetic agents, such as prucalopride, and prosecretory agents, such as lubiprostone, are effective in the treatment of patients with chronic constipation. Surgery is sometimes necessary. Total colectomy with ileorectostomy may be considered in patients with slow-transit constipation and inertia coli who are resistant to medical therapy and who do not have defecatory disorders, generalised motility disorders or psychological disorders. Randomised controlled trials have established the efficacy of rehabilitative treatment in dys-synergic defecation. Many surgical procedures may be used to treat obstructed defecation in patients with acquired anatomical defects, but none is considered to be the gold standard. Surgery should be reserved for selected patients with an impaired quality of life. Obstructed defecation is often associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Surgery with the placement of prostheses is replacing fascial surgery in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, but the efficacy and safety of such procedures have not yet been established.

Consensus statement AIGO/SICCR diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation (part II: treatment)

The second part of the Consensus Statement of the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Italian Society of Colo-Rectal Surgery reports on the treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation. There is no evidence that increasing fluid intake and physical activity can relieve the symptoms of chronic constipation. Patients with normal-transit constipation should increase their fibre intake through their diet or with commercial fibre. Osmotic laxatives may be effective in patients who do not respond to fibre supplements. Stimulant laxatives should be reserved for patients who do not respond to osmotic laxatives. Controlled trials have shown that serotoninergic enterokinetic agents, such as prucalopride, and prosecretory agents, such as lubiprostone, are effective in the treatment of patients with chronic constipation. Surgery is sometimes necessary. Total colectomy with ileorectostomy may be considered in patients with slow-transit constipation and inertia coli who are resistant to medical therapy and who do not have defecatory disorders, generalised motility disorders or psychological disorders. Randomised controlled trials have established the efficacy of rehabilitative treatment in dys-synergic defecation. Many surgical procedures may be used to treat obstructed defecation in patients with acquired anatomical defects, but none is considered to be the gold standard. Surgery should be reserved for selected patients with an impaired quality of life. Obstructed defecation is often associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Surgery with the placement of prostheses is replacing fascial surgery in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, but the efficacy and safety of such procedures have not yet been established.

Complications after rectal prolapse surgery: does approach matter?

BACKGROUND

Data comparing surgical outcomes following abdominal and transperineal approaches for rectal prolapse are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify differences in postoperative complications following abdominal vs transperineal approaches to rectal prolapse.

DESIGN

We studied a retrospective cohort in the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from January 2005 through December 2008.

PATIENTS

We identified all patients who underwent surgical treatment for rectal prolapse.

INTERVENTION

We compared surgical outcomes of standard abdominal approaches compared with standard transperineal approaches to rectal prolapse.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the validated morbidity outcomes and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1485 patients underwent rectal prolapse surgery (706 abdominal and 779 transperineal). Patients treated with abdominal approaches had significantly higher rates of infectious (9.8% vs 3.7%) and overall (12.9% vs 7.6%) complications in comparison with those treated with transperineal approaches. On multivariate analysis, risk factors for overall complications were ASA class 4 (OR 6.4) and abdominal surgery (OR 2.3), whereas an albumin level of ≥ 2.5 was protective (OR 0.05). Significant predictors of infectious complications were ASA class 4 (OR 7.5), BMI >25 (OR 1.8), and rectal prolapse surgery performed with an abdominal approach (OR 2.8).

LIMITATIONS

The retrospective design introduces potential selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal surgery for rectal prolapse is a predictor of both infectious and overall complications. Patients with significant comorbidities or a high BMI are at particularly high risk for complications and may be better suited for a transperineal rather than abdominal approach for the treatment of rectal prolapse.