Randomized controlled trial between perineal and anal repairs of rectocele in obstructed defecation

Outcomes of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus trans-vaginal repair in management of anterior rectocele, a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anterior rectocele is one of the most common colorectal problems with symptoms of obstructed defecation or rectal emptying difficulties. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and transvaginal repair (TVR) for symptomatic anterior rectocele.

METHODS

This is a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted with 40 women. Patients were randomized into two groups. LVMR was done in the first group, whereas the second group underwent TVR. Patient outcomes were compared regarding improvement in constipation using the Cleveland Clinic Constipation (CCC) score and sexual-related quality of life score using the short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) at 6- and 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Forty females were enrolled in this trial. Each group comprised 20 patients. Preoperatively, the CCC score was 17 ± 2.8 in the LVMR group vs. 17.3 ± 2 in the TVR group (P = 0.278). A significant decrease in the constipation score was recorded in each group at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Regarding sexual function, the mean PISQ-12 score at 6 months was 32 ± 3.9 for LVMR vs. 35 ± 1.4 for TVR, P < 0.001), while at 12 months no difference was noted between the two groups. However, each group showed significant improvement in the PISQ-12 score at 6- and 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Comparable results were noted for LVMR and TVR in management of anterior rectocele. Obstructive defecation symptoms and sexual function showed significant improvement after 1 year of follow-up. Nevertheless, long-term follow-up is needed.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the clinical trials registry with registration number NCT06633172.

Surgical correction of the genital hiatus at the time of sacrocolpopexy - a 7-year Markov analysis: a cost-effectiveness analysis

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of concurrent posterior repair performed at the time of laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy over a 7-year time period. We hypothesize it is not cost-effective to perform a posterior colporrhaphy.

METHODS

We used TreeAge Pro® to construct a decision model with Markov modeling to compare sacrocolpopexy with and without concurrent posterior repair (SCP and SCP+PR) over a time horizon of 7 years. Outcomes included probability and costs associated with prolapse recurrence, prolapse retreatment, and complications including rectal injury, rectovaginal hematoma requiring reoperation, and postoperative dyspareunia. Cost-effectiveness was defined as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated as ∆ costs /∆ effectiveness and the willingness to pay (WTP) was set at $100,000/QALY.

RESULTS

Our model showed that SCP was the dominant strategy, with lower costs (-$ 2681.06) and higher effectiveness (+0.10) compared to SCP+PR over the 7-year period. In two-way sensitivity analyses, we varied the probability of prolapse recurrence after both strategies. Our conclusions would only change if the probability of recurrence after SCP was at least 29.7% higher than after SCP+PR. When varying the probabilities of dyspareunia for both strategies, SCP+PR only became the dominant strategy if the probability of dyspareunia for SCP+PR was lower than the rate of SCP alone.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 7-year Markov cost-effectiveness analysis, SCP without concurrent PR was the dominant strategy. SCP+PR costs more with lower effectiveness than SCP alone, due to higher surgical cost of SCP+PR and higher probability of dyspareunia after SCP+PR.

Rectocele: Incidental or important? Observe or operate? Contemporary diagnosis and management in the multidisciplinary era

BACKGROUND

More common in older women than younger women, rectoceles may be secondary to pelvic floor weakness and/or pelvic floor dysfunction with impaired rectal evacuation. Rectoceles may be small (<2 cm), medium (2-4 cm), or large (>4 cm). Arguably, large rectoceles are more likely to be associated with symptoms (e.g., difficult defecation). It can be challenging to ascertain the extent to which a rectocele is secondary to pelvic floor dysfunction and/or whether a rectocele, rather than associated pelvic floor dysfunction, is responsible for symptoms. Surgical repair should be considered when initial treatment measures (e.g., bowel modifying agents and pelvic floor biofeedback therapy) are unsuccessful.

PURPOSE

We summarize the clinical features, diagnosis, and management of rectoceles, with an emphasis on outcomes after surgical repair. This review accompanies a retrospective analysis of outcomes after multidisciplinary, transvaginal rectocele repair procedures undertaken by three colorectal surgeons in 215 patients at a large teaching hospital in the UK. A majority of patients had a large rectocele. Some patients also underwent an anterior levatorplasty and/or an enterocele repair. All patients were jointly assessed, and some patients underwent surgery by colorectal and urogynecologic surgeons. In this cohort, the perioperative data, efficacy, and harms outcomes are comparable with historical data predominantly derived from retrospective series in which patients had a good outcome (67%-78%), symptoms of difficult defecation improved (30%-50%), and patients had a recurrent rectocele 2 years after surgery (17%). Building on these data, prospective studies that rigorously evaluate outcomes after surgical repair are necessary.

Transvaginal rectocoele repair for the surgical treatment of a "symptomatic" rectocoele when conservative measures fail: A 12 year experience of 215 patients

BACKGROUND

Conservative measures are first-line treatment for a "symptomatic" rectocoele, while surgery to correct the anatomical defect may be considered in selected cases. The standard repair offered in our trust is a native tissue transvaginal rectocoele repair (TVRR) combined with levatorplasty. The primary aim of the study was to conduct a retrospective study to assess the outcome of this procedure, while secondary aims were to assess whether specific characteristics and symptoms were associated with response to surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 215 patients who underwent TVRR in a single tertiary referral center between 2006 and 2018. In total, 97% of patients had symptoms of obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) and 81% had a feeling of vaginal prolapse/bulge. We recorded in-hospital and 30 days post-operative complications and pre- and post-operative symptoms.

KEY RESULTS

The majority of patients selected for surgery had rectocoele above 4 cm or medium size with contrast trapping. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.2 days. The in-hospital complication rate was 11.2% with the most common complications being urinary retention (8.4%). Mean length of follow-up was 12.7 months (SD 13.9, range 1.4-71.5) with global improvement of symptoms reported in 87.9% cases. Feeling of vaginal bulge improved in 80% of patients while ODS-related symptoms improved in 58% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

The data suggest that TVRR might be a valid option in patients with rectocoele when conservative treatment has failed. Overall patient satisfaction is good, with improvement of ODS symptoms.

Native Tissue Posterior Compartment Repair for Isolated Posterior Vaginal Prolapse: Anatomical and Functional Outcomes

Background and Objectives: Posterior compartment prolapse is associated with constipation and obstructed defecation syndrome. However, there is still a lack of consensus on the optimal treatment for this condition. We aim to investigate functional, anatomical, and quality-of-life outcomes of native tissue transvaginal repair of isolated symptomatic rectocele. Materials and Methods: We retrospective analyzed patients who underwent transvaginal native tissue repair for stage ≥ II and symptomatic posterior vaginal wall prolapse between January 2018 and June 2021. Anatomical and functional outcomes were evaluated. Wexner constipation score was used to assess bowel symptoms, while the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score was used to evaluate subjective satisfaction after surgery. Results: Twenty-eight patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 64.5 years, and half of them underwent a previous hysterectomy for benign reasons. The median follow-up time was 33.5 months. A significant anatomical improvement in the posterior compartment was noticed compared with preoperative assessment (p < 0.001 for Ap and Bp), with only two (7.1%) anatomical recurrences. Additionally, obstructed defecation symptoms decreased significantly compared to baseline (p < 0.001), as well as vaginal bulging, with no new-onset cases of fecal incontinence or de novo dyspareunia. PGI-I resulted in 89.2% of patients being satisfied (PGI-I ≥ 2), with a median score of 1.5. Conclusions: Transvaginal native tissue repair for isolated posterior prolapse is safe and effective in managing bowel symptoms, with excellent anatomical and functional outcomes and satisfactory improvement in patients’ quality of life.

Literature review of the outcome of and methods used to improve transperineal repair of rectocele

BACKGROUND

Rectocele is commonly seen in parous women and sometimes associated with symptoms of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS).

AIM

To assess the current literature in regard to the outcome of the classical transperineal repair (TPR) of rectocele and its technical modifications.

METHODS

An organized literature search for studies that assessed the outcome of TPR of rectocele was performed. PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar were queried in the period of January 1991 through December 2020. The main outcome measures were improvement in ODS symptoms, improvement in sexual functions and continence, changes in manometric parameters, and quality of life.

RESULTS

After screening of 306 studies, 24 articles were found eligible for inclusion to the review. Nine studies (301 patients) assessed the classical TPR of rectocele. The median rate of postoperative improvement in ODS symptoms was 72.7% (range, 45.8%-83.3%) and reduction in rectocele size ranged from 41.4%-95.0%. Modifications of the classical repair entailed omission of levatorplasty, addition of implant, concomitant lateral internal sphincterotomy, changing the direction of plication of rectovaginal septum, and site-specific repair.

CONCLUSION

The transperineal repair of rectocele is associated with satisfactory, yet variable, improvement in ODS symptoms with parallel increase in quality-of-life score. Several modifications of the classical TPR were described. These modifications include omission of levatorplasty, insertion of implants, performing lateral sphincterotomy, changing the direction of classical plication, and site-specific repair. The indications for these modifications are not yet fully clear and need further prospective studies to help tailor the technique to rectocele patients.

Defecatory Dysfunction

Normal defecation is a complex and coordinated physiologic process that involves the rectum, anus, anal sphincter complex, and pelvic floor muscles. Any alteration of this process can be considered defecatory dysfunction, a term that covers a broad range of disorders, including slow-transit constipation, functional constipation, and functional or anatomic outlet obstruction. Evaluation should include history, physical, and consideration of additional testing such as colonoscopy, colonic transit studies, defecography, and/or anorectal manometry. Depending on the etiology, management options can include conservative measures such as dietary or lifestyle modifications, medications, pelvic floor physical therapy, or surgical repair.

Sexual Function After Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery

Improvement in sexual function is an important goal for many women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse, and patient counseling regarding changes in sexual function and activity is necessary prior to pelvic reconstructive surgery. Based on validated questionnaires, sexual function either remains unchanged or improves after pelvic reconstructive surgery for prolapse, while dyspareunia prevalence is reduced. De novo dyspareunia ranges from 0% to 9% after various types of prolapse surgery, with the exception of posterior repair.

Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy Versus Transvaginal Posterior Colporrhaphy in Management of Anterior Rectocele

BACKGROUND

Management of rectocele is challenging. Treatment usually starts with conservative measures and may involve surgical intervention in non-responding patients. We compared the outcomes of transvaginal posterior colporrhaphy (PC) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in treatment of anterior rectocele.

METHODS

Patients with anterior rectocele who underwent PC or LVMR were functionally assessed using Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) was used for clinical assessment, defecography for anatomic assessment, and manometry for physiologic assessment. In addition, quality of life was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 231 female patients with a mean age of 39 years were included to the study. One hundred fifty-nine underwent PC and 72 underwent LVMR. The LVMR group showed significantly a better functional outcome as compared with the PC group (p < 0.0001). The mean of CCCS at 1 year after LVMR was 6 ± 2.3 vs 9.2 ± 1.2 after PC. The mean of PISQ-12 at 1 year after LVMR was 39.3 ± 2.8 vs 35.8 ± 2.2 after PC. LVMR showed better anatomic correction by defecography, had significantly higher quality of life scores, and had a longer operative time as compared with PC, yet with comparable incidence of complications.

CONCLUSION

PC and LVMR are both effective treatment options for treatment of rectocele. LVMR was associated with better anatomic correction and greater improvement in constipation, sexual symptoms, and quality of life compared with PC. Although LVMR had a longer operation time than PC, the complication rate of the two procedures was comparable.

Horizontal versus vertical plication of the rectovaginal septum in transperineal repair of anterior rectocele: a pilot randomized clinical trial

AIM

Anterior rectocele is usually an asymptomatic condition in many women, yet it can be associated with obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS). Transperineal repair of rectocele (TPR) has been followed by variable rates of improvement in ODS. The present pilot randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate the outcome of TPR with vertical plication (VP) of the rectovaginal septum compared to horizontal plication (HP).

METHODS

Adult women with anterior rectocele were recruited to the study and were randomly allocated to one of two equal groups. The first group underwent TPR with VP of the rectovaginal septum and the second group underwent TPR with HP. The main outcome measures were improvement in ODS, recurrence of rectocele, complications and dyspareunia.

RESULTS

The trial included 40 female patients with anterior rectocele. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the postoperative Wexner score. Complete cure and significant improvement in ODS symptoms were comparable after the two techniques. The reduction in rectocele size after HP was significantly greater than after VP (1.7 vs. 2.6, P < 0.0001). Significant improvement in dyspareunia was recorded after HP (P = 0.001) but not after VP (P = 0.1). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to operating time, complications and recurrence.

CONCLUSION

VP and HP of the rectovaginal septum in TPR were associated with a comparable improvement in ODS symptoms and similar complication rates. HP was followed by a greater reduction in the rectocele size and greater improvement in dyspareunia than VP.

Surgical management of the rectocele - An update

Rectocele is defined as a hernia of the rectum with protrusion of the anterior rectal wall through the posterior wall of the vagina. This condition occurs commonly, with an estimated prevalence of 30-50% of women over age 50. The symptomatology that leads to consultation is variable but consists predominantly of anorectal and/or gynecological complaints such as dyschezia, requiring digital disimpaction maneuvers, pelvic heaviness, anal incontinence, or dyspareunia. Rectocele may be isolated or associated with other disorders of pelvic stasis involving cystocele and uterine prolapse. Complementary exams (dynamic imaging and anorectal manometry) are essential before deciding on the surgical management of this condition. The indications for surgical management of rectocele are based on the intensity of symptoms and the resulting deterioration in quality of life, and surgery should be discussed after failure of medical treatment. Different approaches are possible, although there is currently no real consensus in the literature. The initial approach depends on the type of rectocele: if it involves the low or mid rectum or is isolated, an approach from below (transanal, transperineal, or transvaginal approach) can be proposed, while, in the presence of a high rectocele and/or associated with various disorders of pelvic stasis, transabdominal rectopexy is more suitable.

Specific Changes in Manometric Parameters are Associated with Non-improvement in Symptoms after Rectocele Repair

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The present study aimed to assess the changes in manometric parameters after transperineal repair (TPR) of rectocele and interpret failure of symptom improvement in light of these changes.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study on patients with anterior rectocele who underwent TPR in the period of February 2016 to February 2019. Data collected included patients' demographics, rectocele size, Wexner constipation and incontinence scores, anal pressures, and rectal sensation before and 12 months after TPR. Analysis of data was done by paired t-test and chi-square test.

RESULTS

Forty-six female patients with a mean age of 43.2 ± 10.7 years were included. After a mean follow-up of 13.9 ± 2.7 months, 30 (65.2%) patients reported clinical improvement and 16 (34.8%) had no significant improvement. At 12 months after rectocele repair, the entire cohort studied showed an insignificant increase in the mean anal pressures and a significant decrease in the thresholds of first rectal sensation, first urge, intense urge, and maximum tolerable volume (MTV). Patients who clinically improved showed similar physiologic changes to the entire cohort examined, whereas patients who had no clinical improvement showed significant increases in the mean anal pressures and insignificant decreases in rectal sensation and MTV.

CONCLUSION

Patients who showed clinical improvement showed insignificant increases in anal pressures and significant decreases in thresholds of first rectal sensation, first urge, intense urge, and MTV. Contrarily, patients who did not show clinical improvement showed significant increases in anal pressures and insignificant reduction in sensory thresholds.

Functional Outcome and Sexual-Related Quality of Life After Transperineal Versus Transvaginal Repair of Anterior Rectocele: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Methods of treatment of rectocele include transperineal, transvaginal, and transanal approaches and ventral rectopexy.

OBJECTIVE

The present randomized study aimed to compare the outcome of transperineal repair and transvaginal repair of anterior rectocele.

DESIGN

This is a randomized, single-blinded clinical trial.

SETTING

This study was conducted at the Colorectal Surgery Unit, Mansoura University Hospitals.

PATIENTS

Adult female patients with anterior rectocele reporting obstructed defecation syndrome were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

Anterior rectocele was surgically treated via a transperineal or transvaginal approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Improvement in constipation, operation time, hospital stay, complications, changes in anal pressures, and improvement in sexual-related quality of life was assessed by use of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, and the incidence of dyspareunia postoperatively was assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-four female patients of a mean age of 43.5 years were entered into the trial. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the operation time. Patients undergoing transperineal repair had significantly longer hospital stays than those undergoing transvaginal repair (2.4 vs 2.1 days, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding postoperative complications and recurrence of rectocele. Significant decrease in the constipation scores was recorded in both groups at 6 and 12 months after surgery. The decrease in the constipation scores after transvaginal repair was significantly higher than after transperineal repair at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Although resting and squeeze anal pressures were significantly increased at 12 months after transperineal repair, they did not show significant change after transvaginal repair. Improvement in sexual-related quality of life was significantly higher in the transvaginal repair group than in the transperineal repair group at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Dyspareunia improved after transvaginal repair and worsened after transperineal repair, yet this change was insignificant.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center study comprising a relatively small number of patients.

CONCLUSION

Transvaginal repair of rectocele achieved better improvement in constipation and sexual-related quality of life than transperineal repair. Changes in dyspareunia after both techniques were not significant. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B148.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03801291. RESULTADO FUNCIONAL Y CALIDAD DE VIDA RELACIONADA CON EL SEXO DESPUÉS DE LA REPARACIÓN TRANSPERINEAL VERSUS TRANSVAGINAL DEL RECTOCELE ANTERIOR: UN ENSAYO CLÍNICO ALEATORIZADO: Los métodos de tratamiento del rectocele incluyen los abordajes transperineal, transvaginal y transanal y la rectopexia ventral.El objetivo del presente estudio aleatorizado fue comparar el resultado de la reparación transperineal y la reparación transvaginal del rectocele anterior.Ensayo clínico aleatorizado, simple ciego.Unidad de Cirugía Colorrectal, Hospital Universitario de Mansoura.Pacientes mujeres adultas con rectocele anterior que se quejan de síndrome de defecación obstruida.Tratamiento quirúrgico del rectocele anterior mediante abordaje transperineal o transvaginal.Mejora en el estreñimiento, tiempo de operación, estancia hospitalaria, complicaciones, cambios en la presión anal, mejoría en la calidad de vida relacionada con el sexo evaluada por el cuestionario PISQ-12 e incidencia de dispareunia postoperatoria.Sesenta y cuatro pacientes de sexo femenino de una edad media de 43.5 años ingresaron al ensayo. No hubo diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos con respecto al tiempo de operación. La reparación transperineal tuvo una estancia hospitalaria significativamente más prolongada que la reparación transvaginal (2.4 Vs 2.1 días, p = 0.03). No hubo diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos con respecto a las complicaciones postoperatorias y la recurrencia del rectocele. Se registró una disminución significativa en las puntuaciones de estreñimiento en ambos grupos a los 6 y 12 meses después de la cirugía. La disminución en las puntuaciones de estreñimiento después de la reparación transvaginal fue significativamente mayor que después de la reparación transperineal a los 6 y 12 meses después de la operación. Aunque las presiones anales de reposo y compresión aumentaron significativamente a los 12 meses después de la reparación transperineal, no mostraron cambios significativos después de la reparación transvaginal. La mejora en la calidad de vida relacionada con el sexo fue significativamente mayor en la reparación transvaginal que en el grupo de reparación transperineal a los 6 y 12 meses después de la cirugía. La dispareunia mejoró después de la reparación transvaginal y empeoró después de la reparación transperineal, sin embargo, este cambio fue insignificante.Estudio de un solo centro que comprende un número relativamente pequeño de pacientes.La reparación transvaginal del rectocele logró una mejoría en el estreñimiento y la calidad de vida relacionada con el sexo que la reparación transperineal. Los cambios en la dispareunia después de ambas técnicas no fueron significativos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B148.Ensayos clínicos. Identificador del gobierno: NCT03801291.

A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in randomized trials evaluating surgical interventions for posterior vaginal prolapse to aid development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Recent systematic reviews have demonstrated wide variations on outcome measure selection and outcome reporting in trials on surgical treatments for anterior, apical and mesh prolapse surgery. A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in posterior compartment vaginal prolapse interventions is highly warranted in the process of developing core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcome and outcome measures reporting in posterior prolapse surgical trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of different surgical interventions for posterior compartment vaginal prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two researchers independently assessed studies for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality, and extracted relevant data. Methodological quality, outcome reporting quality and publication characteristics were evaluated.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven interventional and four follow-up trials were included. Seventeen studies enrolled patients with posterior compartment surgery as the sole procedure and 14 with multicompartment procedures. Eighty-three reported outcomes and 45 outcome measures were identified. The most frequently reported outcomes were blood loss (20 studies, 74%), pain (18 studies, 66%) and infection (16 studies, 59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variations in reported outcomes and outcome measures were found. Until a core outcome set is established, we propose an interim core outcome set that could include the three most commonly reported outcomes of the following domains: hospitalization; intraoperative, postoperative urinary, gastrointestinal, vaginal and sexual outcomes; clinical effectiveness.

PROSPERO

CRD42017062456.

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.

Posterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse: Suture-Based Repair

Pelvic organ prolapse is common in parous women, although few report symptoms. The incidence of posterior compartment prolapse, or rectocele, is less well-reported. Posterior vaginal wall prolapse is associated with pain, constipation, and splinting. Surgery is the mainstay of therapy for symptomatic rectoceles. Though several surgical techniques have been described, no clear indications for type of repair have emerged. This article reviews the management strategies and draws conclusions about suture-based and site-specific techniques.

Surgery for women with posterior compartment prolapse

BACKGROUND

Posterior vaginal wall prolapse (also known as 'posterior compartment prolapse') can cause a sensation of bulge in the vagina along with symptoms of obstructed defecation and sexual dysfunction. Interventions for prevention and conservative management include lifestyle measures, pelvic floor muscle training, and pessary use. We conducted this review to assess the surgical management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of any surgical intervention compared with another surgical intervention for management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (searched April 2017). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were subjective awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for any prolapse, and objectively determined recurrent posterior wall prolapse.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 RCTs evaluating 1099 women. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of evidence quality were risk of bias (associated mainly with performance, detection, and attrition biases) and imprecision (associated with small overall sample sizes and low event rates).Transanal repair versus transvaginal repair (four RCTs; n = 191; six months' to four years' follow-up)Awareness of prolapse is probably more common after the transanal approach (risk ratio (RR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 7.70; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). If 10% of women are aware of prolapse after transvaginal repair, between 10% and 79% are likely to be aware after transanal repair.Repeat surgery for any prolapse: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.88; 1 RCT; n = 57; low-quality evidence).Recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse is probably more likely after transanal repair (RR 4.12, 95% CI 1.56 to 10.88; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I2 = 35%; moderate-quality evidence). If 10% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after transvaginal repair, between 16% and 100% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after transanal repair.Postoperative obstructed defecation is probably more likely with transanal repair (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.79; 3 RCTs; n = 113; I2 = 10%; low-quality evidence).Postoperative dyspareunia: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 2 RCTs; n = 80; I2 = 5%; moderate-quality evidence).Postoperative complications: Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of any differences between groups (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.94 to 13.54; 3 RCTs; n = 135; I2 = 37%; low-quality evidence). If 2% of women have complications after transvaginal repair, then between 2% and 21% are likely to have complications after transanal repair.Evidence shows no clear differences between groups in operating time (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 1.49, 95% CI -11.83 to 8.84; 3 RCTs; n = 137; I2 = 90%; very low-quality evidence).Biological graft versus native tissue repairEvidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.62; 2 RCTs; n = 181; I2 = 13%; moderate-quality evidence) or repeat surgery for any prolapse (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.97; 2 RCTs; n = 271; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of a difference in rates of recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.01; 3 RCTs; n = 377; I2 = 6%; moderate-quality evidence); if 13% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after native tissue repair, between 4% and 13% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after biological graft. Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of postoperative obstructed defecation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 2 RCTs; n = 172; I2 = 42%; moderate-quality evidence) or postoperative dyspareunia (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.25; 2 RCTs; n = 152; I2 = 74%; low-quality evidence). Postoperative complications were more common with biological repair (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.72; 3 RCTs; n = 448; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence).Other comparisonsSingle RCTs compared site-specific vaginal repair versus midline fascial plication (n = 74), absorbable graft versus native tissue repair (n = 132), synthetic graft versus native tissue repair (n = 191), and levator ani plication versus midline fascial plication (n = 52). Data were scanty, and evidence was insufficient to show any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of any of these interventions. The mesh exposure rate in the synthetic group compared with the native tissue group was 7%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Transvaginal repair may be more effective than transanal repair for posterior wall prolapse in preventing recurrence of prolapse, in the light of both objective and subjective measures. However, data on adverse effects were scanty. Evidence was insufficient to permit any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of other types of surgery. Evidence does not support the utilisation of any mesh or graft materials at the time of posterior vaginal repair. Withdrawal of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market may limit the generalisability of our findings.

Transperineal rectocele repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transperineal rectocele repairs, either as isolated fascial repair or in combination with mesh augmentation, are hypothesized to reduce the risk of complications compared with alternative techniques.

AIM

The aim of this study was to ascertain long-term success and complication rates following transperineal rectocele repairs.

METHOD

A literature search of PubMed and Embase was performed using the terms 'transperineal rectocele', 'rectocele', 'transperineal' and 'repair'. Prospective studies, case series and retrospective case note analyses from 1 January 1994 to 1 December 2016 were included. Those that detailed outcomes of the transperineal approach or compared it to transanal/transvaginal approaches were included. The main outcome measures were reported complications and functional outcome scores.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were included. Of 566 patients, 333 (58.8%) underwent a transperineal rectocele repair and 220 (41.2%) a transanal repair. Complications were identified in 27 (12.3%) of the 220 transanal repairs and in 41 (12.3%) of the 333 transperineal repairs. A significant complication following transperineal repair was noted in eight studies. There are not enough data to make a reliable comparison between mesh and non-mesh transperineal repairs or to compare biological and synthetic mesh use.

LIMITATIONS

Outcome reporting differed between studies, precluding a full meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Transperineal rectocele repair offers an effective method of symptom improvement and appears to have a similar complication rate as transanal rectocele repair. Concomitant use of synthetic and biological mesh augmentation is becoming more common; however, high-quality comparative data are lacking, so a direct comparison between surgical approaches is not yet possible.

Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations: Results IV: Recto-vaginal reinforcement procedures

AIM

To assess the outcomes of recto-vaginal reinforcement procedures in adults with chronic constipation.

METHOD

Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCiTY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level.

RESULTS

Forty-three articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 3346 patients. Average length of procedures ranged between 20 and 169 min, and length of stay between 1 and 15 days. Complications typically occurred after 7-17% of procedures (range 0-61%). Post-operative bleeding was uncommon (0-4%) as well as haematoma or sepsis (0-2%). Fistulation did not occur in most studies. Two procedure-related deaths were observed for 3209 patients. Although inconsistent, 78% of patients reported a satisfactory or good outcome, with 30-50% experiencing reduced symptoms of straining, incomplete emptying or reduced vaginal digitation. About 17% of patients developed anatomical recurrence. Considering measures of harm and global satisfaction rating scales, there was insufficient evidence to prefer one type of procedure over another. There was no evidence to support better outcomes based on selection of patients with a particular size or grade of rectocoele.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supporting recto-vaginal reinforcement procedures is currently derived from observational studies and comparisons, with only one high quality study. Large trials are needed to inform future clinical decision making.

Comparative Study Between Trans-perineal Repair With or Without Limited Internal Sphincterotomy in the Treatment of Type I Anterior Rectocele: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Two types of rectocele exist; type I is characterized by relatively high resting anal pressures, whereas type II has lower resting anal pressures with associated pelvic organ prolapse. We compared trans-perineal repair (TPR) of rectocele with or without limited internal sphincterotomy (LIS) in the treatment of type I anterior rectocele.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Consecutive patients with anterior rectocele were evaluated for inclusion. Sixty-two female patients with type I anterior rectocele were randomized and equally allocated to receive TPR alone (group I) or TPR with LIS (group II). The primary outcome was the clinical improvement of constipation. Secondary outcomes were recurrence of rectocele, operative time, and postoperative complications including fecal incontinence (FI).

RESULTS

Clinical improvement of constipation and patients' satisfaction were significantly higher in group II at 1 year of follow-up (93.3 versus 70 %). Constipation scores significantly decreased in both groups postoperatively with more reduction being observed in group II (11.1 ± 2.1 in group I versus 8 ± 1.97 in group II). Significant reduction in the resting anal pressure was noticed in group II. Recurrence was recorded in three (10 %) patients of group I and one patient of group II. No significant differences between the two groups regarding the operative time and hospital stay were noted.

CONCLUSION

Adding LIS to TPR of type I rectocele achieved better clinical improvement than TPR alone. The only drawback of LIS was the development of a minor degree of FI, which was temporary in duration.

Native Tissue Prolapse Repairs: Comparative Effectiveness Trials

This report reviews the success rates and complications of native tissue (nonmesh) vaginal reconstruction of pelvic organ prolapse by compartment. For apical prolapse, both uterosacral ligament suspensions and sacrospinous ligament fixations are effective and provided similar outcomes in anatomy and function with few adverse events. In the anterior compartment, traditional colporrhaphy technique is no different than ultralateral suturing. In the posterior compartment, transvaginal rectocele repair is superior to transanal repair. For uterine preservation, sacrospinous hysteropexy is not inferior to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for treatment of apical uterovaginal prolapse.

A transanal procedure using TST STARR Plus for the treatment of Obstructed Defecation Syndrome: 'A mid-term study'

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the safety, efficacy and outcomes of TST STARR (Stapled Transanal Rectal Resection) plus to treat Obstructed Defecation Syndrome (ODS) at mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

From April 2013 to September 2014, 50 cases (7 male patients) with ODS caused by rectocele and/or internal rectal prolapse were treated with the new TST STARR Plus. Clinical data from the 18 month mid-term follow up, including efficacy and constipations were recorded.

RESULTS

The average duration of surgery was 21 ± 4 min (range 12-35 min). The average postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (range 4-8 days). The pathological findings showed that the specimens contained full-thickness rectal tissue in all patients. The mean volume of resected specimen was 12.3 cm(3). Postoperative complications included five cases with transient faecal urgency that dissipated after 3 months; one patient suffered anastomotic bleeding on the sixth day after surgery, with successful haemostasis achieved through conservative therapy. The Wexner constipation score improved in patients affected by ODS from 13.96 ± 2.37 preoperatively to 7.00 ± 3.90, 7.28 ± 3.91, 8.10 ± 4.05 and 8.44 ± 4.08 at 3,6,12 and 18 months postoperatively, respectively, with all p < 0.05. Overall outcome was reported as ''excellent'' in 42% of patients, ''good'' in 36% of patients, ''adequate'' in 12% of patients, and ''poor'' in 10% of patients after 18 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The TST STARR Plus is a simple, safe, and effective option for selected patients with ODS. Long-term prospective clinical studies are needed to validate the advantages of this emerging, novel procedure.

Current Trends in Management of Defecatory Dysfunction, Posterior Compartment Prolapse, and Fecal Incontinence

While it would be our hope to report that there have been significant gains in the understanding of the correlation between the posterior vaginal compartment and defecatory dysfunction in the last year, this is not the case. Instead, we review the highlights of management of posterior vaginal compartment and defecatory dysfunction including 1) defining and understanding the patient's symptoms; 2) considering systemic disorders, motility dysfunction, and mechanical causes that may be contributing; 3) encouraging conservative management as first-line therapy; and 4) recognizing which surgical options are likely to improve specific symptoms. This is then followed by an update on treatment options for fecal incontinence, which we now prefer to refer to as accidental bowel leakage. We are able to report on five exciting and innovative treatment approaches for accidental bowel leakage. As the scientific community increases focus on patient-centered outcomes, we are likely on the verge of having a greater understanding of how treatment options for posterior compartment prolapse and defecatory dysfunction can improve patient symptoms. This year, we can report that strong evidence based recommendations simply do not exist, and this area is ripe for future investigation.

Surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim was to review the safety and efficacy of surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

METHODS

Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCT] or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 (case reports). The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. Grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. Grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs. Grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or "majority evidence from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. Grade D "no recommendation possible" would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi.

RESULTS

Level 1 and 2 evidence suggest that midline plication posterior repair without levatorplasty might have superior objective outcomes compared with site-specific posterior reopair (grade B). Higher dyspareunia rates are reported when levatorplasty is employed (grade C). The transvaginal approach is superior to the transanal approach for repair of posterior wall prolapse (grade A). To date, no studies have shown any benefit of mesh overlay or augmentation of a suture repair for posterior vaginal wall prolapse (grade B). While modified abdominal sacrocolpopexy results have been reported, data on how these results would compare with traditional transvaginal repair of posterior vaginal wall prolapse are lacking.

CONCLUSION

Midline fascial plication without levatorplasty is the procedure of choice for posterior compartment prolapse. No evidence supports the use of polypropylene mesh or biological graft in posterior vaginal compartment prolapse surgery.

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.

[Transanal procedure for functional bowel diseases]

The transanal operative procedure for the treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) can be secondarily applied in cases of failure or ineffectiveness of conservative treatment. Clinically established transanal procedures are rectocele resection (RR), mucosectomy for internal rectal prolapse according to the Rehn-Delorme procedure (MR) and stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR Contour Transtar). Only few studies have indicated the value of RR and MR in the treatment of obstructive diseases and in general study quality and evidence level are low. There might be an indication in rectocele-associated symptoms, such as incomplete evacuation, straining and digitation. In contrast the STARR procedure has been well characterized by a large number of high quality studies providing an elevated evidence level for the treatment of ODS. Functional results are available with a follow-up of 1 year up to 68 months postoperatively. Response rates of up to 90% were reported whereas recurrence rates were given as a maximum of 18% at 68 months follow-up. In summary the STARR procedure provides good functional results for conservative refractory outlet obstruction with minor morbidity and outcome seems to remain stable in the long-term follow-up.

How to deal with complications after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: lessons learnt from a tertiary referral centre

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is increasingly recognized as having utility in rectal prolapse, obstructive defaecation syndrome (ODS), faecal incontinence (FI) and multicompartment pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD). This study aimed to highlight gaps in service provision and areas for improvement by examining a cohort of patients with complications referred to a tertiary centre.

METHOD

Examination was carried out of a password-protected electronic database of all LVMRs operated on in one institution.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (45 women), median age 54 (range, 24-71) years, were referred with early symptomatic failure (n = 27) following an inadequate LVMR or major mesh complications (erosion into another organ, fistulation or stricturing) (n = 23). All were amenable to remedial laparoscopic surgery. Functional improvements were found in pre- and postoperative ODS, Wexner (FI) scores (two-tailed t-test; P < 0.0001) and quality of life (Birmingham Bowel and Urinary Symptoms Questionnaire-22) scores at 3 months (two-tailed t-test; P < 0.001) and normalization at 1 year (P < 0.015). This was mirrored by improved linear bowel symptom severity visual analogue scale scores (two-tailed t-test; P < 0.0001 at 3 months and P = 0.015 at 1 year) .

CONCLUSION

LVMR can be associated with technical complications arising from inadequate technique or from operation-specific complications that are amenable to complex revisional laparoscopic surgery with significant improvement in quality of life and function.

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse may occur in up to 50% of parous women. A variety of urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms may be associated with the prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of the many different surgeries used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings, healthcare-related bibliographic databases, handsearched conference proceedings (searched 20 August 2012), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by two review authors. Six investigators were contacted for additional information with five responding.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-six randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating 5954 women. For upper vaginal prolapse (uterine or vault) abdominal sacral colpopexy was associated with a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse on examination and painful intercourse than with vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living and increased cost of the abdominal approach. In single studies the sacral colpopexy had a higher success rate on examination and lower reoperation rate than high vaginal uterosacral suspension and transvaginal polypropylene mesh.Twenty-one trials compared a variety of surgical procedures for anterior compartment prolapse (cystocele). Ten compared native tissue repair with graft (absorbable and permanent mesh, biological grafts) repair for anterior compartment prolapse. Native tissue anterior repair was associated with more recurrent anterior compartment prolapse than when supplemented with a polyglactin (absorbable) mesh inlay (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) or porcine dermis mesh inlay (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.01), however there was no difference in post-operative awareness of prolapse after absorbable mesh (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.81) or a biological graft (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.30). Data on morbidity and other clinical outcomes were lacking. Standard anterior repair was associated with more anterior compartment prolapse on examination than for any polypropylene (permanent) mesh repair (RR 3.15, 95% CI 2.50 to 3.96). Awareness of prolapse was also higher after the anterior repair as compared to polypropylene mesh repair (28% versus 18%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.07). However, the reoperation rate for prolapse was similar at 14/459 (3%) after the native tissue repair compared to 6/470 (1.3%) (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 5.10) after the anterior polypropylene mesh repair and no differences in quality of life data or de novo dyspareunia were identified. Blood loss (MD 64 ml, 95% CI 48 to 81), operating time (MD 19 min, 95% CI 16 to 21), recurrences in apical or posterior compartment (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4) and de novo stress urinary incontinence (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.1) were significantly higher with transobturator meshes than for native tissue anterior repair. Mesh erosions were reported in 11.4% (64/563), with surgical interventions being performed in 6.8% (32/470).Data from three trials compared native tissue repairs with a variety of total, anterior, or posterior polypropylene kit meshes for vaginal prolapse in multiple compartments. While no difference in awareness of prolapse was able to be identified between the groups (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.7) the recurrence rate on examination was higher in the native tissue repair group compared to the transvaginal polypropylene mesh group (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.1). The mesh erosion rate was 35/194 (18%), and 18/194 (9%) underwent surgical correction for mesh erosion. The reoperation rate after transvaginal polypropylene mesh repair of 22/194 (11%) was higher than after the native tissue repair (7/189, 3.7%) (RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 7.3).Data from three trials compared posterior vaginal repair and transanal repair for the treatment of posterior compartment prolapse (rectocele). The posterior vaginal repair had fewer recurrent prolapse symptoms (RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.0) and lower recurrence on examination (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) and on defecography (MD -1.2 cm, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.3).Sixteen trials included significant data on bladder outcomes following a variety of prolapse surgeries. Women undergoing prolapse surgery may have benefited from having continence surgery performed concomitantly, especially if they had stress urinary incontinence (RR 7.4, 95% CI 4.0 to 14) or if they were continent and had occult stress urinary incontinence demonstrated pre-operatively (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 6.6). Following prolapse surgery, 12% of women developed de novo symptoms of bladder overactivity and 9% de novo voiding dysfunction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sacral colpopexy has superior outcomes to a variety of vaginal procedures including sacrospinous colpopexy, uterosacral colpopexy and transvaginal mesh. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living, and increased cost of the abdominal approach.The use of mesh or graft inlays at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair reduces the risk of recurrent anterior wall prolapse on examination. Anterior vaginal polypropylene mesh also reduces awareness of prolapse, however these benefits must be weighted against increased operating time, blood loss, rate of apical or posterior compartment prolapse, de novo stress urinary incontinence, and reoperation rate for mesh exposures associated with the use of polypropylene mesh.Posterior vaginal wall repair may be better than transanal repair in the management of rectocele in terms of recurrence of prolapse. The evidence is not supportive of any grafts at the time of posterior vaginal repair. Adequately powered randomised, controlled clinical trials with blinding of assessors are urgently needed on a wide variety of issues, and they particularly need to include women's perceptions of prolapse symptoms. Following the withdrawal of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market, the generalisability of the findings, especially relating to anterior compartment transvaginal mesh, should be interpreted with caution.

Medical and surgical management of pelvic floor disorders affecting defecation

Pelvic floor disorders that affect stool evacuation include structural (for example, rectocele) and functional disorders (for example, dyssynergic defecation (DD)). Meticulous history, digital rectal examination (DRE), and physiological tests such as anorectal manometry, colonic transit study, balloon expulsion, and imaging studies such as anal ultrasound, defecography, and static and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can facilitate an objective diagnosis and optimal treatment. Management consists of education and counseling regarding bowel function, diet, laxatives, most importantly behavioral and biofeedback therapies, and finally surgery. Randomized clinical trials have established that biofeedback therapy is effective in treating DD. Because DD may coexist with conditions such as solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) and rectocele, before considering surgery, biofeedback therapy should be tried and an accurate assessment of the entire pelvis and its function should be performed. Several surgical approaches have been advocated for the treatment of pelvic floor disorders including open, laparoscopic, and transabdominal approach, stapled transanal rectal resection, and robotic colon and rectal resections. However, there is lack of well-controlled randomized studies and the efficacy of these surgical procedures remains to be established.

Changes in bowel symptoms 1 year after rectocele repair

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate changes in bowel symptoms after rectocele repair and identify risk factors for persistent symptoms.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted ancillary analysis of a randomized surgical trial for rectocele repair. Subjects underwent examinations and completed questionnaires for bowel symptoms at baseline and 12 months postoperatively. Outcomes included resolution, persistence, or de novo bowel symptoms. We used multiple logistic regression to identify risk factors for bowel symptom persistence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 women enrolled: 139 had baseline bowel symptoms and 85% had 12-month data. The prevalence of bowel symptoms decreased after rectocele repair (56% vs 23% splinting, 74% vs 37% straining, 85% vs 19% incomplete evacuation, 66% vs 14% obstructive defecation; P < .001 for all). On multiple logistic regression, a longer history of splinting was a risk factor for persistent postoperative splinting (adjusted odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-4.93).

CONCLUSION

Bowel symptoms may improve after rectocele repair, but almost half of women will have persistent symptoms.

Transanal repair for treatment of rectocele in obstructed defaecation: manual or stapled

AIM

Our aim is to evaluate the results of transanal repair of rectocele, either manual or stapled, considering the anatomic, manometric and symptomatic improvement.

METHODS

Forty-five female patients with obstructed defaecation due to anterior rectocele were operated on in the Colorectal Surgery Unit, Mansoura University Hospital, after history taking, detailed questionnaire analysis, barium enema, anorectal manometric studies, EMG studies, anal endosonography, balloon expulsion test, colonic transit time and defaecographic studies. Transanal manual repair was performed for 23 patients (group 1), and transanal stapled repair (group 2) was performed for 22 patients. Postoperative complications were recorded, and the patients were followed up for 1 year. Functional results were evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery by questionnaire, anorectal manometry and evacuation proctography.

RESULTS

Time of operation and hospital stay were significantly shorter in group 2. Postoperatively, there was no mortality or major morbidity. Two patients in group 1 experienced temporary anal incontinence (A3 and B1 stages). There were no reported adverse effects on sexual life, but significant clinical improvement was observed in both groups after surgery. Manometrically, there was a significant improvement in MARP, FLAC, RS, UTDV and MTV in both groups (significantly better in the early postoperative period in the stapled group). Also, follow-up defaecographic findings showed a significant decrease in the rectocele size in all the patients.

CONCLUSION

Transanal repair of rectocele is a safe and effective technique in improving symptomatic rectocele. Stapled repair offers the advantage of short operative time, no comorbidity, and shorter hospital stay.

A transanal procedure using an endoscopic linear stapler for obstructed defecation syndrome: the first Chinese experience

BACKGROUND

Transanal surgery using an endoscopic linear stapler is a recognized, but not widely performed technique for the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). A study of consecutive patients was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the technique for the treatment of ODS in Chinese patients.

METHODS

From November 2008 to December 2010, 43 female patients with ODS caused by rectocele and/or rectal intussusception underwent transanal surgery using an endoscopic linear stapler in three Chinese hospitals. Clinical and functional data including the Wexner constipation score and outcome classification were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The average duration of surgery was 23 ± 4 min (range 15-30 min). Blood loss was 10 ± 2 ml (range 5-15 ml). The average postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (range 4-6 days). The pathologic findings showed that the specimen contained rectal muscle in all patients. Postoperative complications included 4 patients with transient fecal urgency, 3 patients with anorectal pain, and one patient with mild bleeding from the stapled suture line. Three patients reported minor fecal incontinence (Wexner score less than 3). During a median follow-up of 12 months (range, 3-26 months), the mean constipation score improved from preoperative 13.56 to postoperative 5.07 at 1 year (P < 0.05). The outcome at 1 year was excellent in 18 of 43 patients, good in 13, fairly good in 7, and poor in 5. Postoperative defecography was performed in 28 patients. Rectocele disappeared in 15 patients. Rectocele depth was reduced from 34 ± 4 mm preoperatively to 17 ± 3 mm postoperatively (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The transanal procedure using an endoscopic linear stapler is an easy, safe, and effective option for selected patients with ODS. Long-term prospective, randomized, controlled studies are needed to confirm the advantages of this procedure in comparison with the traditional transanal and stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) techniques.

Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for complex rectocoele: impact on anorectal and sexual function

AIM

Minimally invasive surgery for pelvic floor prolapse has recently been shown to be feasible and safe. This study presents the results of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocoele, focusing on less frequently reported outcomes of bowel and sexual function.

METHOD

We prospectively assessed 41 consecutive patients who underwent ventral mesh rectopexy (robotic-assisted or laparoscopic) for a symptomatic complex rectocoele from January 2009 to January 2010. Complex rectocoele was defined as having one or more of the following features: larger than 3 cm, an enterocoele or internal rectal prolapse. Patients with cystocoele underwent bladder suspension concurrently. Both groups were assessed for anatomical recurrence and function, comparing preoperative and postoperative faecal incontinence, obstructive defaecation syndrome and Gastrointestinal Quality-of-life Index scores, as well as vaginal discomfort and sexual function.

RESULTS

Forty-one women underwent the procedure (16 robotic-assisted), with four (10.5%) having minor complications and two developing anatomical recurrence. There was significant relief of the commonest predominant symptoms of vaginal bulge/fullness (P<0.0001) and sexual dysfunction (P=0.02). There were three conversions to laparotomy (one robotic-assisted) and five patients declined postoperative functional assessment. In the remaining 33 patients [follow-up median 12 (8-21) months], analysis revealed no significant difference in overall functional score (P>0.740) or between patients with one or two meshes inserted (P>0.486). Only patients with a preoperative obstructive defaecation syndrome score >6 had a significant improvement postoperatively (P=0.030).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for complex rectocoele offers satisfactory anatomical correction and functional results, with the potential for alleviating symptoms of outlet obstruction and improving vaginal comfort and sexual dysfunction.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for complex rectocele

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, previously described for external rectal prolapse, was evaluated for symptomatic complex rectocoele.

METHOD

From January 2004 to December 2008, 84 (50.9%) patients (mean age 64 ± 5 years) underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for symptomatic complex rectocoele, confirmed preoperatively on dynamic defaecography, with 26 (31%) patients having a concurrent cystocoele. The operative technique was standardized, and those with cystocoele underwent bladder mesh suspension during the same procedure. Prospectively collected data were analysed for preoperative symptoms, operative and functional results [constipation, faecal incontinence (FI), dyspareunia and satisfaction score].

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 3.6% and perioperative morbidity 4.8% with no mortality. At a median follow up of 29 (4-59) months, there was a significant decrease in vaginal discomfort (86-20%) and obstructed defaecation symptoms (83-46%), P < 0.001. There was no significant change in FI (20-16%), no worsening of preoperative symptoms or new complaints of constipation, dyspareunia or FI. Overall, 88% of patients reported an improvement in overall well-being.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is a safe and effective method for treating symptomatic complex rectocoele.