Defecography: does parity play a role in the development of rectal prolapse?

Comparison between dynamic cystocolpoproctography and dynamic pelvic floor MRI: pros and cons: which is the "functional" examination for anorectal and pelvic floor dysfunction?

"Functional" imaging of anorectal and pelvic floor dysfunction has assumed an important role in the diagnosis and management of these disorders. Although defecography has been widely practiced for decades to evaluate the dynamics of rectal emptying, debate concerning its clinical relevance, how it should be done and interpreted continues. Due to the recognition of the association of defecatory disorders with pelvic organ prolapse in women, the need to evaluate the pelvic floor as a unit has arisen. To meet this need, defecography has been extended to include not only evaluation of defecation disorders but also the rest of the pelvic floor by opacifying the small bowel, vagina, and the urinary bladder. The term "dynamic cystocolpoproctography" (DCP) has been appropriately applied to this examination. Rectal emptying performed with DCP provides the maximum stress to the pelvic floor resulting in complete levator ani relaxation. In addition to diagnosing defecatory disorders, this method of examination demonstrates maximum pelvic organ descent and provides organ-specific quantification of organ prolapse, information that is only inferred by means of physical examination. It has been found to be of clinical value in patients with defecation disorders and the diagnosis of associated prolapse in other compartments that are frequently unrecognized by history taking and the limitations of physical examination. Pelvic floor anatomy is complex and DCP does not show the anatomical details pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides. Technical advances allowing acquisition of dynamic rapid MRI sequences has been applied to pelvic floor imaging. Early reports have shown that pelvic MRI may be a useful tool in pre-operative planning of these disorders and may lead to a change in surgical therapy. Predictions of hypothetical increase cancer incidence and deaths in patients exposed to radiation, the emergence of pelvic floor MRI in addition to questions relating to the clinical significance of DCP findings have added to these controversies. This review analyses the pros and cons between DCP and dynamic pelvic floor MRI, addresses imaging and interpretive controversies, and their relevance to clinical management.

What is the natural history of internal rectal prolapse?

AIM

The nature and clinical significance of internal rectal prolapse is controversial. Its natural history is unclear. Longitudinal cohort studies show rare progression to external prolapse but lack adequate follow-up. We aimed to study the relationship of age to various stages of internal rectal prolapse using the Oxford Rectal Prolapse Grade (ORPG) and evaluate the influence of sex and vaginal delivery on this relationship.

METHOD

Internal rectal prolapsed (IRP) diagnosed at proctography and external rectal prolapse were graded using the ORPG. Age, sex and obstetric history were documented. Mean age of each prolapse grade (1-5) was analysed and regression analysis performed for age and prolapse. Subgroup analyses were made for males, and females with (V+) and without (V0) history of vaginal delivery.

RESULTS

Sixty males (11%) and 471 females (89%) were studied. The difference in the mean ages of each group was statistically significant (grade 1,38.6; grade 2, 52.1; grade 3, 56.0; grade 4, 60.3 and grade 5, 66.5, P < 0.0001). On average male (8.7 years) and V0-group (8.0 years) were younger than V+ group (95% CI difference 4.5-12.9 years, P < 0.0001, and 3.8-12.2 years, P < 0.0001, respectively). Males and V0-group had weaker correlation between age and prolapse grade (r = 0.16 and r = 0.17, respectively, vs 0.41), and a faster prolapse progression rate than the V+ group.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate a strong relationship between age and prolapse grade, supporting the view of internal rectal prolapse as a precursor to external prolapse in the spectrum of rectal prolapse disease.

Rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Rectal prolapse, or procidentia, is defined as a protrusion of the rectum beyond the anus. It commonly occurs at the extremes of age. Rectal prolapse frequently coexists with other pelvic floor disorders, and patients have symptoms associated with combined rectal and genital prolapse. Few patients, a lack of randomized trials and difficulties in the interpretation of studies of anorectal physiology have made the understanding of this disorder difficult.

METHODS OF TREATMENT

Surgical management is aimed at restoring physiology by correcting the prolapse and improving continence and constipation, whereas in patients with concurrent genital and rectal prolapse, an interdisciplinary surgical approach is required. Operation should be reserved for those patients in whom medical treatment has failed, and it may be expected to relieve symptoms. Numerous surgical procedures have been suggested to treat rectal prolapse. They are generally classified as abdominal or perineal according to the route of access. However, the controversy as to which operation is appropriate cannot be answered definitively, as the extent of a standardized diagnostic assessment and the types of surgical procedures have not been identified in published series.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This review encompasses rectal prolapse, including aetiology, symptoms and treatment. The English-language literature about rectal prolapse was identified using Medline, and additional cited works not detected in the initial search were obtained. Articles reporting on prospective and retrospective comparisons and case reports were included.

A comparison of open vs. laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Using meta-analytical techniques, this study was designed to compare open and laparoscopic abdominal procedures used to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults.

METHODS

Comparative studies published between 1995 and 2003, cited in the literature of open abdominal rectopexy vs. laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy, were used. The primary end points were recurrence and morbidity, and the secondary end points assessed were operative time and length of hospital stay. A random effect model was used to aggregate the studies reporting these outcomes, and heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

Six studies, consisting of a total of 195 patients (98 open and 97 laparoscopic) were included. Analysis of the data suggested that there is no significant difference in recurrence and morbidity between laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy and open abdominal rectopexy. Length of stay was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group by 3.5 days (95 percent confidence interval, 3.1-4; P < 0.01), whereas the operative time was significantly longer in this group, by approximately 60 minutes (60.38 minutes; 95 percent confidence interval, 49-71.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure, which may compare equally with the open technique with regards to recurrence and morbidity and favorably with length of stay. However large-scale randomized trials, with comparative, sound methodology are still needed to ascertain detailed outcome measures accurately.

Digital assessment of lower rectum fixity in rectal prolapse (DALR): a simple clinical anatomical test to determine the most suitable approach (abdominal versus perineal) for repair

Selection of an appropriate approach to treat full thickness rectal prolapse remains problematic and controversial. We propose that rectal prolapse may be classified as 'low type' (true rectal prolapse) or 'high type' (intussusception of the sigmoid with a fixed lower rectum). This assessment can be made via a simple clinical test of digital rectal assessment of lower rectal fixity ('the hook test') based on anatomic changes in rectal prolapse to guide the selection process. In cases with the low-type prolapse, a perineal approach is appropriate (either Delorme's procedure, or rectosigmoidectomy with or without pelvic floor repair). For the high type, an abdominal rectopexy with or without high anterior resection is needed. Retrospective analysis of our cases treated over the last 6 years showed a recurrence rate of 6% in perineal procedures and 0% in abdominal rectopexy combined with resection to date. We believe that employing our simple test and classification can contribute to better patient selection for either approach, minimize anaesthetic and surgical risks and also result in lower recurrence rates.

Dynamic evaluation of the anorectum

The evaluation of EP is complicated by the lack of any gold standard and a shifting clinical emphasis as management regimens go in and out of favor. As with all functional bowel disease, there is a residue of patients who are difficult to manage, and in whom a clinician will want maximum information before deciding on treatment. The examination has been criticized as lacking clinical relevance, and of having poor interobserver reliability except for rectal emptying and rectocele formation. Others have found a higher (83.3%) observer accuracy and a high yield of positive diagnoses. A questionnaire showed that clinicians found EP of major benefit in 40%, altering management from surgical to medical in 14% and vice versa in 4%. Radiographic examinations only impact on clinical management when findings alter management. Management protocols are evolving in functional disorders, but important features that EP reveals are anismus, trapping in rectoceles, IAI, and rectal prolapse. EP is the only method to diagnose some of these conditions and within defined parameters is extremely valuable in clinical management.