Does the STARR procedure change the pelvic floor: a preoperative and postoperative study with dynamic pelvic floor MRI

Surgical interventions for posterior compartment prolapse and obstructed defecation symptoms: a systematic review with clinical practice recommendations

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Several posterior compartment surgical approaches are used to address posterior vaginal wall prolapse and obstructed defecation. We aimed to compare outcomes for both conditions among different surgical approaches.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed comparing the impact of surgical interventions in the posterior compartment on prolapse and defecatory symptoms. MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 4 April 2018. Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective comparative and single-group studies of women undergoing posterior vaginal compartment surgery for vaginal bulge or bowel symptoms were included. Studies had to include both anatomical and symptom outcomes both pre- and post-surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-six eligible studies reported on six surgery types. Prolapse and defecatory symptoms improved with native-tissue transvaginal rectocele repair, transanal rectocele repair, and stapled transanal rectocele repair (STARR) surgeries. Although prolapse was improved with sacrocolpoperineopexy, defecatory symptoms worsened. STARR caused high rates of fecal urgency postoperatively, but this symptom typically resolved with time. Site-specific posterior repairs improved prolapse stage and symptoms of obstructed defecation. Compared with the transanal route, native-tissue transvaginal repair resulted in greater improvement in anatomical outcomes, improved obstructed defecation symptoms, and lower chances of rectal injury, but higher rates of dyspareunia.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery in the posterior vaginal compartment typically has a high rate of success for anatomical outcomes, obstructed defecation, and bulge symptoms, although these may not persist over time. Based on this evidence, to improve anatomical and symptomatic outcomes, a native-tissue transvaginal rectocele repair should be preferentially performed.

Post-operative clinical, manometric, and defecographic findings in patients undergoing unsuccessful STARR operation for obstructed defecation

AIM

To evaluate the reason for failure of STARR (stapled transanal rectal resection) operation for obstructed defecation.

METHODS

A retrospective study (June 2012-December 2017) was performed using a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent STARR operation for ODS (obstructed defecation syndrome), complaining of persisting or de novo occurrence of pelvic floor dysfunctions. Postoperative St Mark's and ODS scores were evaluated. A VAS was used to score pelvic pain. Patients' satisfaction was estimated administering the CPGAS (clinical patient grading assessment scale) questionnaire. Objective evaluation was performed by dynamic proctography and anorectal manometry.

RESULTS

Ninety patients (83.3% females) operated for ODS using STARR technique were evaluated. Median ODS score was 19 while 20 patients (22%) reported de novo fecal urgency and 4 patients a worsening of their preoperative fecal incontinence. Dynamic proctography performed in 54/90 patients showed a significant (> 3.0 cm) rectocele in 19 patients, recto-rectal intussusception in 10 patients incomplete emptying in 24 patients. When compared with internal normal standards, anorectal manometry showed decreased rectal compliance and maximum tolerable volume in patients with urgency. Nine patients reported a persistent postoperative pelvic pain (median VAS score 6).

CONCLUSION

Failure of STARR to treat ODS, documented by persisting ODS symptoms, fecal urgency, or chronic pelvic pain, is often justified by the persistence or de novo onset of alteration of the anorectal anatomy at defecation. This occurs in about half of the patients, but in 40% of the cases who complained of incomplete emptying or incontinence, anatomical abnormalities were not recognized.

Surgical Interventions and the Use of Device-Aided Therapy for the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence and Defecatory Disorders

The purpose of this clinical practice update expert review is to describe the key principles in the use of surgical interventions and device-aided therapy for managing fecal incontinence (FI) and defecatory disorders. The best practices outlined in this review are based on relevant publications, including systematic reviews and expert opinion (when applicable). Best Practice Advice 1: A stepwise approach should be followed for management of FI. Conservative therapies (diet, fluids, techniques to improve evacuation, a bowel training program, management of diarrhea and constipation with diet and medications if necessary) will benefit approximately 25% of patients and should be tried first. Best Practice Advice 2: Pelvic floor retraining with biofeedback therapy is recommended for patients with FI who do not respond to the conservative measures indicated above. Best Practice Advice 3: Perianal bulking agents such as intra-anal injection of dextranomer may be considered when conservative measures and biofeedback therapy fail. Best Practice Advice 4: Sacral nerve stimulation should be considered for patients with moderate or severe FI in whom symptoms have not responded after a 3-month or longer trial of conservative measures and biofeedback therapy and who do not have contraindications to these procedures. Best Practice Advice 5: Until further evidence is available, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation should not be used for managing FI in clinical practice. Best Practice Advice 6: Barrier devices should be offered to patients who have failed conservative or surgical therapy, or in those who have failed conservative therapy who do not want or are not eligible for more invasive interventions. Best Practice Advice 7: Anal sphincter repair (sphincteroplasty) should be considered in postpartum women with FI and in patients with recent sphincter injuries. In patients who present later with symptoms of FI unresponsive to conservative and biofeedback therapy and evidence of sphincter damage, sphincteroplasty may be considered when perianal bulking injection and sacral nerve stimulation are not available or have proven unsuccessful. Best Practice Advice 8: The artificial anal sphincter, dynamic graciloplasty, may be considered for patients with medically refractory severe FI who have failed treatment or are not candidates for barrier devices, sacral nerve stimulation, perianal bulking injection, sphincteroplasty and a colostomy. Best Practice Advice 9: Major anatomic defects (eg, rectovaginal fistula, full-thickness rectal prolapse, fistula in ano, or cloaca-like deformity) should be rectified with surgery. Best Practice Advice 10: A colostomy should be considered in patients with severe FI who have failed conservative treatment and have failed or are not candidates for barrier devices, minimally invasive surgical interventions, and sphincteroplasty. Best Practice Advice 11: A magnetic anal sphincter device may be considered for patients with medically refractory severe FI who have failed or are not candidates for barrier devices, perianal bulking injection, sacral nerve stimulation, sphincteroplasty, or a colostomy. Data regarding efficacy are limited and 40% of patients had moderate or severe complications. Best Practice Advice 12: For defecatory disorders, biofeedback therapy is the treatment of choice. Best Practice Advice 13: Based on limited evidence, sacral nerve stimulation should not be used for managing defecatory disorders in clinical practice. Best Practice Advice 14: Anterograde colonic enemas are not effective in the long term for management of defecatory disorders. Best Practice Advice 15: The stapled transanal rectal resection and related procedures should not be routinely performed for correction of structural abnormalities in patients with defecatory disorders.

Postoperative MR Defecography following Failed STARR Procedure for Obstructive Defecation Syndrome: A Three-Centre Experience

AIM

To describe the abnormalities at MR imaging and related complaints in patients with poor outcome after STARR procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of 21 symptomatic patients from centre 1, 31 patients from centre 2, and 63 patients from centre 3 were reviewed with regard to findings at MR defecography and related symptoms.

RESULTS

Regardless of the centre, most relevant imaging features and related complaints were (a) impaired emptying (82.11%), related complaint ODS; (b) persistent rectocele >2 cm and intussusception (39.3%), split evacuation and digitation; (c) pelvic organ descent on straining (39.8%), prolapse sensation; (d) small neorectum and loss of contrast (32.5%), urgency and incontinence; (e) anastomotic stricture and granuloma (28.4%), pain; and (f) nonrelaxing puborectalis muscle (19.5%), tenesmus. Less frequent findings included rectal pocket formation (5.6%) and rectovaginal sinus tract (1.6%). Patients were referred to MR imaging with an average time interval of 5 ± 2, 4 ± 1, and 2 ± 1 years in the three centres, respectively, and only rarely by the same surgeon who performed the operation: 1/21 (4.8%) in centre 1, 3/39 (7.7%) in centre 2, and 9/63 (14.3%) in centre 3.

CONCLUSION

Most surgeons involved in STARR operation with subsequent poor outcome do not rely on MR imaging.

Short-term outcomes after anterior stapling rectotomy using a single stapler device for rectocele

Background

Stapled transanal rectal segmental resection (STARR) is a technique for treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) when associated with rectocele and/or intussusceptions.

Objectives

To evaluate a simplified method using a single stapler device for isolated anterior rectal wall correction of structural abnormalities (single-STARR technique).

Materials and methods

Patients who were diagnosed with ODS underwent the single-STARR procedure. Their baseline symptoms were measured by using a modified obstructed defecation syndrome (MODS) questionnaire score. Evacuation proctography was performed to exclude functional anorectal disorders. Colonoscopy was selectively performed and for all patients older than 50 years. Single-STARR procedure was performed in cases where there was no evidence of an inflammatory, metabolic, neoplastic process, or functional disorders. The summed global score of ODS ranged from 0 (normal) to 24 (severe). Outcomes were determined by evaluating the postoperative improvement using a MODS score.

Results

A total of 9 patients (mean (SD) age 53 (13.6) years) with ODS were eligible for the study. Both rectocele and intussusceptions were diagnosed from preoperative defecography in 7 of the patients. Single-STARR was successfully performed without intraoperative complications in all patients with a mean operative time of 52 (12.7) min. The mean severity of symptoms decreased significantly at the 3rd and 6th (P < 0.01) month after surgery. However, one-third of patients experienced persistence of symptoms or symptom score deterioration on the 12th month after surgery.

Conclusion

The single-STARR procedure provided short-term symptom relief with no serious postoperative complication in a small series of 9 cases.

TST36 stapling for rectocele and hemorrhoidal prolapse - early results of the prospective German multicenter study

Introduction: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of stapled transanal procedures performed by a 36 mm stapling device, the so-called TST36 stapler. Methods: From September 2013 to June 2014 a prospective observational study was carried out by 8 proctology centers in Germany. The Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS) for incontinence and the Altomare ODS score were determined preoperatively. Follow-up examinations were performed after 14 days, one month and 6 months, at this time both scores were reevaluated. Results: 110 consecutive patients (71 women, 39 men) with a mean age of 59.7 years (±13.8 years) were included in the study. The eight participating institutes entered 3 to 31 patients each into the study. The indication for surgery was an advanced hemorrhoidal disease in 55 patients and ODS with rectal intussusception or rectocele in 55 patients. Mechanical problems with stapler introduction occurred in 22 cases (20%) and a partial stapleline dehiscence in 4 cases (3.6%). Additional stitches for bleeding from stapleline were necessary in 86 patients (78.2%). Reintervention was necessary for bleeding 7 times (6.3%). Severe complications during follow-up were stapleline dehiscence in one case and recurrent hemorrhoidal prolapse in 5 cases (4.5%). Altomare ODS score and CCIS improved significantly after surgery. Conclusions: Despite a notable complication rate during surgery and the postoperative period, the TST36 can be considered as an effective tool for low rectal stapling for anorectal prolapse causing hemorrhoids or obstructed defecation.

Postoperative MR Defecography following Failed STARR Procedure for Obstructive Defecation Syndrome: A Three-Centre Experience

Aim. To describe the abnormalities at MR imaging and related complaints in patients with poor outcome after STARR procedure. Materials and Methods. The medical records of 21 symptomatic patients from centre 1, 31 patients from centre 2, and 63 patients from centre 3 were reviewed with regard to findings at MR defecography and related symptoms. Results. Regardless of the centre, most relevant imaging features and related complaints were (a) impaired emptying (82.11%), related complaint ODS; (b) persistent rectocele >2 cm and intussusception (39.3%), split evacuation and digitation; (c) pelvic organ descent on straining (39.8%), prolapse sensation; (d) small neorectum and loss of contrast (32.5%), urgency and incontinence; (e) anastomotic stricture and granuloma (28.4%), pain; and (f) nonrelaxing puborectalis muscle (19.5%), tenesmus. Less frequent findings included rectal pocket formation (5.6%) and rectovaginal sinus tract (1.6%). Patients were referred to MR imaging with an average time interval of 5 ± 2, 4 ± 1, and 2 ± 1 years in the three centres, respectively, and only rarely by the same surgeon who performed the operation: 1/21 (4.8%) in centre 1, 3/39 (7.7%) in centre 2, and 9/63 (14.3%) in centre 3. Conclusion. Most surgeons involved in STARR operation with subsequent poor outcome do not rely on MR imaging.

Transanal surgery for obstructed defecation syndrome: Literature review and a single-center experience

Obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) is a functional disorder commonly encountered by colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists, and greatly affects the quality of life of patients from both societal and psychological aspects. The underlying anatomical and pathophysiological changes of ODS are complex. However, intra-rectal intussusception and rectocele are frequently found in patients with ODS and both are thought to play an important role in the pathogenesis of ODS. With the development of evaluation methods in anorectal physiology laboratories and radiology studies, a great variety of new operative procedures, especially transanal procedures, have been invented to treat ODS. However, no procedure has been proved to be superior to others at present. Each operation has its own merits and defects. Thus, choosing appropriate transanal surgical procedures for the treatment of ODS remains a challenge for all surgeons. This review provides an introduction of the current problems and options for treatment of ODS and a detailed summary of the essential assessments needed for patient evaluation before carrying out transanal surgery. Besides, an overview of the benefits and problems of current transanal surgical procedures for treatment of ODS is summarized in this review. A report of clinical experience of some transanal surgical techniques used in the authors' center is also presented.

Management of pelvic floor disorders: biofeedback and more

OPINION STATEMENT

Defecatory disorders (DD) and fecal incontinence (FI) are common conditions. DD are primarily attributable to impaired rectoanal function during defecation or structural defects. FI is caused by one or more disturbances of anorectal continence mechanisms. Altered stool consistency may be the primary cause or may unmask anorectal deficits in both conditions. Diagnosis and management requires a systematic approach beginning with a thorough clinical assessment. Symptoms do not reliably differentiate a DD from other causes of constipation such as slow or normal transit constipation. Therefore, all constipated patients who do not adequately respond to medical therapy should be considered for anorectal testing to identify a DD. Preferably, two tests indicating impaired defecation are required to diagnose a DD. Patients with DD, or those for whom testing is not available and the clinical suspicion is high, should be referred for biofeedback-based pelvic floor physical therapy. Patients with FI should be managed with lifestyle modifications, pharmacotherapy for bowel disturbances, and management of local anorectal problems (e.g., hemorrhoids). When these measures are not beneficial, anorectal testing and pelvic floor retraining with biofeedback therapy should be considered. Sacral nerve stimulation or perianal bulking could be considered in patients who have persistent symptoms despite optimal management of bowel disturbances and pelvic floor retraining.

Posterior pelvic floor disorders and obstructed defecation syndrome: clinical and therapeutic approach

There are no clear recommended imaging guidelines for the assessment of patients presenting primarily with obstructed defecation syndrome and defecation difficulty. The gold standard has always been the defecating proctogram which may require a rather poorly tolerated extended technique involving high-radiation exposure in young women which includes cystography, vaginography, small bowel opacification, and occasional peritoneography. The development of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging has obviated many of these extended techniques and may be supplemented by novel ultrasonographic methods including dynamic transperineal sonography, real-time 3D translabial ultrasound and 3D dynamic echodefecography. Patients potentially suitable for surgical treatment display a multiplicity of pelvic floor and perineal soft-tissue anomalies where one pathology (such as rectocele or enterocele) are considered dominant. Despite the introduction of recent stapled and robotic technologies, there is a dual dialog concerning the functional outcome of these procedures. Imaging and surgical algorithms for these patients are provided.

Results in the long-term course after stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR)

PURPOSE

Stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) has recently been recommended for patients with obstructed defecation caused by rectocele and rectal wall intussusception. Our study investigates the long-term results and predictive factors for outcome.

METHODS

Between November 2002 and February 2007, 80 patients (69 females) were operated on using the STARR procedure and included in the following study. Symptoms were defined according to the ROME II criteria. Preoperative assessment included clinical examination, colonoscopy, video defecography, and dynamic MRI. Preoperatively and during follow-up visits, we evaluated the Cleveland Constipation Score (CCS) to rate the severity of outlet obstruction and the Wexner Incontinence Score to rate anal incontinence. Patients were asked to judge the outcome of the operation as improved or poor/dissatisfied. We performed a univariate analysis for 11 patient- and disease-related factors to detect an association with outcome.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 39 months (range 20-78). Major postoperative complications (one staple line insufficiency, one urosepsis, one prolonged urinary dysfunction with indwelling catheter) were found in 3.8%. The result after STARR procedure was a success in the long-term follow-up in 62 patients (77.5%), although the improvement did not persist in 15 patients (18.7%). The mean value of the CCS decreased significantly from 9.3 before surgery to 4.6 after 2 years and increased again slightly to 6.5 after 4-6 years. The Median Wexner Incontinence Score was 3.3 at baseline, but rose significantly to 6.0. However, a third of patients who reported deteriorated continence developed the symptoms 1-4 years after surgery. Of the factors investigated for the prediction of outcome, we could only identify the number of pelvic floor changes in defecography or dynamic MRI as being associated with the success of the operation.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that STARR is a safe procedure. A significant improvement of symptoms is to be expected, but this improvement may deteriorate with time. Patients' satisfaction is also associated with the occurrence of urge to defecate or incontinence. It remains difficult to predict outcome.

Difficult defecation: difficult problem assessment and management; what really helps?

Difficult defecation is a common and perhaps underrecognized cause of chronic constipation. While the history and a careful digital rectal examination are very useful for diagnosing defecatory disorders, the diagnosis needs to be confirmed by anorectal tests. Anorectal manometry and a rectal balloon expulsion test generally suffice to diagnose defecatory disorders; barium or MR defecography may necessary in selected cases. Colonic transit is normal or slow in patients with defecatory disorders. Pelvic floor retraining by biofeedback therapy is superior to laxatives for managing defecatory disorders.