Abdominal resection rectopexy with an absorbable polyglactin mesh: prospective evaluation of morphological and functional changes with consecutive improvement of patient's symptoms

Absence of a rectocele may be correlated with reduced internal anal sphincter function in patients with rectal intussusception and fecal incontinence

PURPOSE

Fecal incontinence (FI) is common in patients with rectal intussusception (RI), although the mechanism behind its formation is unclear. Recent data indicate that a reduction in internal sphincter tone may cause FI, which becomes notable with increasing RI levels. However, the roles of other anatomical abnormalities in anal function remain unclear. This study assessed the relationships between various pelvic floor abnormalities and anal sphincter function in patients with RI and FI.

METHODS

Data for patients with RI, collected in a prospective pelvic floor database, were assessed retrospectively. All women with FI, without anal sphincter defect, were included. Data on anorectal physiology and evacuation proctography were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 397 patients with RI, 85, who had predominantly passive FI, met the inclusion criteria. Maximum resting pressure (MRP) was significantly lower in patients with rectoanal intussusception (RAI) than in those with rectorectal intussusception (RRI) [51.1 (17.9-145.8) vs. 70.7 (34.7-240.6) cmH₂O, P = 0.007]. Moreover, MRP was significantly lower in RI patients without rectocele than in RI patients with rectocele [50.1 (17.9-111.0) vs. 69.9 (34.7-240.6) cmH₂O, P < 0.0001]. Regression analysis showed that RAI rather than RRI and RI without rectocele rather than RI with rectocele were predictive of decreased MRP. However, no variable was significantly associated with decreased maximum squeeze pressure on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

In addition to an advanced level of intussusception, the absence of a rectocele may be correlated with reduced internal anal sphincter function in patients with RI and FI.

Rectoanal intussusception is very common in patients with fecal incontinence

Objectives: Fecal incontinence (FI) is a multifactorial disorder, the etiology of which is not fully understood. Recent data have shown the significance of rectoanal intussusception (RAI) in the evaluation of FI. The present study aimed to determine the incidence of RAI in patients with FI. Methods: Between June 2010 and February 2016, 74 patients, who were evaluated using evacuation proctography, anorectal manometry, ultrasound, and incontinence scores, were included in this study. RAI was diagnosed when the apex of the rectal intussusception (RI) impinged on the internal anal orifice or was intra-anal, based on the images taken during maximal straining defecation at evacuation proctography. The characteristics of RAI patients were further analyzed. Results: There were 59 women (80%) and 15 men, with a median age of 74 (52-93) years. Sixty patients (81%) had RI, and 56 (76%) showed RAI. The incidence of RAI among the 32 patients with FI alone and the 42 patients with FI and symptoms of obstructed defecation (OD) was 72% (23/32) and 79% (33/42), respectively. The incidence of RAI was not significantly different between the patients with normal manometry (maximum resting pressure [MRP] ≥55 cmH₂O and maximum squeeze pressure [MSP] ≥150 cmH₂O, n=26) and those with subnormal manometry (MRP <55 cmH₂O and/or MSP <150 cmH₂O, n=48). Conclusion: RAI is common in patients with FI. Evacuation proctography should be taken into account as a part of the regular study of FI patients.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in patients with fecal incontinence associated with rectoanal intussusception: prospective evaluation of clinical, physiological and morphological changes

BACKGROUND

Physiological changes after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) in patients with rectoanal intussusception (RAI) remain unclear. This study was undertaken to evaluate physiological and morphological changes after LVR for RAI, and to study clinical outcomes following LVR with special reference to fecal incontinence (FI).

METHODS

The study was conducted on patients who had LVR for RAI between February 2012 and December 2016 at our institution Patients with RAI and FI were included in the study. Patients with RAI and obstructed defecation and those with RAI and neurologic FI were not included. The patients had anorectal manometry preoperatively, and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Defecography was performed before and 6 months after the procedure. FI was evaluated using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI).

RESULTS

There were 34 patients (median age 77 years (range 60-93) years). Thirty-two patients (94%) were female and the median number of vaginal deliveries was 2 (range 0-5). Neither maximum resting pressure nor maximum squeeze pressure increased postoperatively. There was an overall increase in both defecatory desire volume (median preoperative 75 ml vs. 90 ml at 12 months; p = 0.002) and maximum tolerated volume (median preoperative 145 ml vs.175 ml at 12 months; p = 0.002). Postoperatively, RAI was eliminated in all patients but one, although 13 had residual rectorectal intussusception found at defecography. There was an overall reduction in both rectocele size (median preop 29 mm vs. postop 10 mm; p = 0.008) and pelvic floor descent (median preop 26 mm vs. postop 20 mm; p = 0.005). Twelve months after surgery, a reduction of at least 50% was observed in the FISI score for 31 incontinent patients (91%).

CONCLUSIONS

LVR for RAI produced adequate improvement of FI, and successful anatomical correction of RAI was confirmed by postoperative proctography. Postoperative increase in the rectal volume may have a positive effect on continence.

Functional Disorders: Rectoanal Intussusception

Rectoanal intussusception is an invagination of the rectal wall into the lumen of the rectum. Patients may present with constipation, incomplete evacuation, incontinence, or may be asymptomatic. Defecography has been the gold standard for detection. Magnetic resonance imaging defecography and dynamic anal endosonography are alternatives to conventional defecography. However, both methods are not as sensitive as conventional defecography. Treatment options range from conservative/medical treatment such as biofeedback to surgical procedures such as Delorme, rectopexy, and stapled transanal rectal resection. Recent studies conducted after a trial of failed nonoperative management show adequate results with operations performed for rectal intussusception with or without rectocele if other causes of constipation are not present.

[Pelvic floor disorders from the surgeon's viewpoint]

Pelvic floor disorders present very differently with regard to symptoms and manifestation. Both diagnostic and treatment options require specific experience and an interdisciplinary approach. Diagnostic work-up is primarily based on medical history, physical examination and procto-rectoscopy. Furthermore, endosonography and perineal sonography have also gained importance. In almost all cases following these basic examinations conservative therapy options should be considered. As the interdisciplinary concept is very important, for careful diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders it became crucial to find an adequate form of treatment. Every decision for surgical therapy should not only focus on the results of previous examinations but should also consider the individual situation of each patient. In pelvic floor disorders a large variety of symptoms are confronted with a vast number of different and often highly specific procedures. The decisions on who to treat and how to treat are not only based on individual patient requests and desires but also on the experience and preference of the surgeon.

Combined Burch urethropexy and anterior rectopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: skip the mesh

PURPOSE

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common accompaniment of advancing age. Current repair techniques incorporate transvaginal and transabdominal approaches with or without prosthetic mesh insertion. In this paper, we present the short- and medium-term results of a unit policy directed at patients with POP of combined abdominal rectopexy and Burch retropubic urethropexy without the use of prosthetic mesh assessing its safety profile in selected cases.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and January 2011, 16 women with tri-compartmental prolapse who had all undergone prior hysterectomy underwent combined surgical pelvic floor repair. Preoperative symptom assessment by validated questionnaires and clinical examination were pre- and postoperatively recorded. Cures were defined as either optimal or satisfactory outcomes based on combined clinical, radiological examinations and reported patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 16 patients was 57.2 years, and their mean BMI was 28.6 (±5 SD). Pelvic examination revealed a POP-Q stage III prolapse in 12 patients and stage IV in 4 patients. The mean operating time was 57.5 min (range 40-85), with a mean length of hospital stay of 4.5 days. Cystocele and enterocele resolution was noted in every case on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results in a small patient cohort employing a simple 'all-in-one' repair approach combining a retropubic colposuspension with an anterior rectopexy appear to be satisfactory. Further larger randomized studies are required, incorporating a laparoscopic arm in order to determine the longer-term effectiveness of this approach.