No surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse: what happens with continence?

A comparative study between transanal and transabdominal approaches in treatment of complete rectal prolapse

Formulating clear guidelines for the most reliable treatment methods for complete rectal prolapse appears challenging. The authors designed this study to compare the results according to the approaches for female complete rectal prolapse and to suggest a more effective method. The transanal and abdominal groups showed differences in operating time, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. However, both groups demonstrated improvement in postoperative functional evaluation.

PURPOSE

There is a wide variety of surgical methods to treat rectal prolapse; however, to date, no clear agreement exists regarding the most effective surgical method. This study was designed to compare the results according to the surgical approach for complete rectal prolapse in women.

METHODS

This study was conducted from March 2016 to February 2021 on female patients with rectal prolapse who underwent surgery. First, all patients were classified into mucosal and complete layer groups to confirm the difference in results between the two groups, and only complete layer prolapse patients were divided into transanal and abdominal approaches to compare parameters and functional outcomes in each group.

RESULTS

A total of 180 patients were included, with an average age of 71.7 years and 102 complete prolapses. The complete layer group was found to have more abdominal access, longer operating time, and higher recurrence rates compared to the mucosal layer group. (p<0.001) When targeting only the complete layer patients, there were 65 patients with the transanal and 37 with the abdominal (laparoscopic) approaches. The abdominal approach group had a longer operating time and hospital stay (p<0.001, respectively) and lower recurrence rate than the transanal group (transanal vs. abdominal, 38% vs. 10.8%, p=0.003), while the Wexner constipation and incontinence scores showed improved results in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Although operating time and hospitalization period were shorter in the transanal group, laparoscopic abdominal surgery is a procedure that can reduce the recurrent rate for complete rectal prolapse.

Evaluation of Pain and Distress and Therapeutic Interventions for Rectal Prolapse in Mice to Reduce Early Study Removal

Rectal prolapse (RP) is a common clinical condition in mice, that does not have a recognized or documented standard of care. At our institution, an average of 240 mice develop RP each year. Our practice has been to recommend euthanasia upon identifying a RP based on its appearance as a painful or distressful condition. This study aimed to assess treatment options that would maintain the RP mucosa and allow mice to reach their study endpoint, and to evaluate the perception of this condition as a painful or distressful event. This study used 120 mice with spontaneous RP, concurrently assigned to ongoing research protocols. Mice were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: petroleum jelly, lidocaine jelly, or no treatment. Fecal samples were collected for pathogen testing, and all mice received an initial base score, followed by weekly blind scores. Upon euthanasia, RP tissue was collected for histopathology. Of the 120 mice identified with RP, 47 mice were breeders; 28% successfully produced 22 additional litters after developing RP. Seventy-three were nonbreeders, with 92% reaching their research study endpoint. No statistically significant differences were detected between the 3 treatment groups based on gross mucosal health, pain and distress, or histopathology. In this study, none of the mice in any group were euthanized based on the RP endpoint scoring criteria. These findings demonstrate that treatment is unnecessary for RP, and mice with RP did not show signs of pain or distress. In adherence to the 3Rs, this study supports animal number reduction and clinical refinement, allowing mice with RPs to reach their intended research study endpoints or produce additional litters.

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

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

Abdominal Approaches to Rectal Prolapse

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

Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Medical Management of Rectal Prolapse

Full-thickness rectal prolapse, or procidentia, is the passage of the full-thickness wall of the rectum beyond the anal sphincters. This condition results in pain and fecal incontinence which greatly impairs the quality of life of those afflicted. It is associated with several anatomic abnormalities, including decreased anal sphincter tone, levator muscle diastasis, and a deep anterior cul-de-sac. The diagnosis of rectal prolapse is made based on physical examination, although several other modalities are used to provide additional information about the patients' condition. While medical management of rectal prolapse can be effective in some cases, the mainstay of management of rectal prolapse is surgical correction.

Modified laparoscopic anterior resection of the rectum for rectal prolapse in elderly patients

AIM: To assess the clinical effects, feasibility and safety of modified laparoscopic anterior resection of the rectum for rectal prolapse in elderly patients.

METHODS: The clinical data for 20 elderly patients suffering from rectal prolapse who underwent modified laparoscopic anterior resection of the rectum (laparoscopic group) and 20 elderly patients who underwent modified anterior resection of the rectum (open group) from 2005 to 2013 were collected. Comparative analysis of the two surgical groups was done.

RESULTS: Surgery was successful in all of the 40 cases. The mean length of the resected specimen was 21.7 cm ± 2.2 cm vs 22.3 cm ± 2.1 cm and showed no significant difference between the two groups. Mean intraoperative blood loss (118.0 mL ± 40.8 mL vs 156.0 mL ± 33.5 mL), time to recovery of intestinal function (2.3 d ± 0.9 d vs 3.9 d ± 0.7 d), mean duration of postoperative hospital stay (6.3 d ± 1.1 d vs 9.9 d ± 1.7 d) and mean operational time (146.0 min ± 22.3 min vs 115.0 min ± 16.5 min) differed significantly between the two groups. There was also a significant difference between the two groups in the rate of complications (15% vs 45%). All the cases were followed for 36.0 mo ± 11.3 mo and the recurrence rate was 10.0% vs 5.0%, showing no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: Modified laparoscopic anterior resection of the rectum for rectal prolapse in elderly patients is safe, effective, and satisfactory, with low recurrence rate and minimal invasiveness. Laparoscopic procedure should be considered first for rectal prolapse in elderly patients.

Long-term impact of full-thickness rectal prolapse treatment on fecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is frequently associated with rectal prolapse, but little is known about recovery after treatment of the prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

We therefore aimed to investigate the long-term outcome of fecal incontinence in a cohort of patients suffering from full-thickness rectal prolapse.

DESIGN

A database of 145 patients diagnosed with full-thickness rectal prolapse was compiled prospectively over a 7-year period (2003-2010).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients were referred to a single institution and assessed by standardized questionnaires, anorectal manometry, endosonography, and evacuation proctography. Fecal incontinence was evaluated according to the Cleveland Clinic Score; continence improvement was defined by ≥50% improvement of the Cleveland Clinic Score.

RESULTS

Among the population studied (134 women, 11 men; median follow-up, 38.9 months [range, 21.2-67.2]), 103 patients (71%) underwent operation for their prolapse and 42 (29%) did not. According to the Cleveland Clinic Score, 139 patients (96%) suffered from fecal incontinence before treatment and 64 (46%) reported improvement at the end of the follow-up. Pretreatment history of incontinence symptoms for >2 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.99; 95% CI, 1.14-3.46; P = .015) and ventral rectopexy (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.026-3.326; P = .04) were associated with continence improvement. Patients who underwent an operative procedure other than ventral rectopexy had similar outcome as compared with nonoperated patients. Conversely, chronic pelvic pain precluded fecal incontinence improvement (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.135-0.668; P = .0017).

LIMITATIONS

Follow-up, returned questionnaires, and the heterogeneous reasons put forth for declining surgery may introduce some methodologic bias.

CONCLUSION

Fecal incontinence in patients suffering from rectal prolapse is improved when ventral rectopexy is performed compared with other operative or medical therapies.