Preoperative anal manometry predicts continence after perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse

Current diagnostic tools and treatment modalities for rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus. It is a rare condition, and only affects 0.5% of the general population. Multiple treatment modalities have been described, which have changed significantly over time. Particularly in the last decade, laparoscopic and robotic surgical approaches with different mobilization techniques, combined with medical therapies, have been widely implemented. Because patients have presented with a wide range of complaints (ranging from abdominal discomfort to incomplete bowel evacuation, mucus discharge, constipation, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence), understanding the extent of complaints and ruling out differential diagnoses are essential for choosing a tailored surgical procedure. It is crucial to assess these additional symptoms and their severities using preoperative scoring systems. Additionally, radiological and physiological evaluations may explain some vague symptoms and reveal concomitant pelvic disorders. However, there is no consensus on or standardization of the optimal extent of dissection, type of procedure, and materials used for rectal fixation; this makes providing maximum benefits to patients with minimal complications difficult. Even recent publications and systematic reviews have not recommended the most appropriate treatment options. This review explains the appropriate diagnostic tools for different conditions and summarizes the current treatment approaches based on existing literature and expert opinions.

Perineal Rectosigmoidal Resection for Complete Rectal Prolapse

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse (RP) (rectal Providencia) is a disorder manifest by full-thickness intussusceptions of the rectal wall that protrudes externally through the anus. AIM: A retrospective study was done to evaluate the outcome of rectosigmoidal resection for complete rectal prolapse (CRP) in our hospital from 2008 to 2020. METHODS: This study analyzes the data of post-operative outcomes for 25 patients with CRP treated by perineal rectosigmoidal resection; eight patients were male and 17 were female. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients enrolled with the median age of 50 years. There was an improvement in the general condition of patients regarding constipation, bleeding per rectum, incontinence, and perineal discomfort. There were no mortality, no major complication, and a low recurrence rate. CONCLUSION: Altemier’s procedure for CRP improves patients’ general condition regarding constipation and incontinence, no mortality, low complication rate, and negligible rate of recurrence.

Surgical Techniques for Rectal Prolapse

Complete rectal prolapse or rectal procidentia is a debilitating disease that presents with fecal incontinence, constipation, and rectal discharge. Definitive surgical techniques described for this disease include perineal procedures such as mucosectomy and rectosigmoidectomy, and abdominal procedures such as rectopexy with or without mesh and concomitant resection. The debate over these techniques regarding the lowest recurrence and morbidity rates, and the best functional outcomes for constipation or incontinence, has been going on for decades. The heterogeneity of available studies does not allow us to draw firm conclusions. This article aims to review the surgical techniques for complete rectal prolapse based on the current evidence base regarding surgical and functional outcomes.

Absent or impaired rectoanal inhibitory reflex as a diagnostic factor for high-grade (grade III-V) rectal prolapse: a retrospective study

Background

Clinically diagnosing high-grade (III–V) rectal prolapse might be difficult, and the prolapse can often be overlooked. Even though defecography is the significant diagnostic tool for rectal prolapse, it is noticed that rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR) can be associated with rectal prolapse. This study investigated whether RAIR can be used as a diagnostic factor for rectal prolapse.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we evaluated 107 patients who underwent both anorectal manometry and defecography between July 2012 and December 2019. Rectal prolapse was classified in accordance with the Oxford Rectal Prolapse Grading System. Patients in the high-grade (III–V) rectal prolapse (high-grade group, n = 30), and patients with no rectal prolapse or low-grade (I, II) rectal prolapse (low-grade group, n = 77) were analyzed. Clinical variables, including symptoms such as fecal incontinence, feeling of prolapse, and history were collected. Symptoms were assessed using yes/no surveys answered by the patients. The manometric results were also evaluated.

Results

Frequencies of fecal incontinence (p = 0.002) and feeling of prolapse (p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the high-grade group. The maximum resting (77.5 vs. 96 mmHg, p = 0.011) and squeezing (128.7 vs. 165 mmHg, p = 0.010) anal pressures were significantly lower in the high-grade group. The frequency of absent or impaired RAIR was significantly higher in the high-grade group (19 cases, 63% vs. 20 cases, 26%, p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, the feeling of prolapse (odds ratio [OR], 23.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.43–128.78; p < 0.001) and absent or impaired RAIR (OR, 5.36; 95% CI, 1.91–15.04, p = 0.001) were independent factors of high-grade (III–V) rectal prolapse. In addition, the percentage of the absent or impaired RAIR significantly increased with grading increase of rectal prolapse (p < 0.001). The sensitivity of absent or impaired RAIR as a predictor of high-grade prolapse was 63.3% and specificity 74.0%.

Conclusions

Absent or impaired RAIR was a meaningful diagnostic factor of high-grade (III–V) rectal prolapse. Furthermore, the absent or impaired reflex had a positive linear trend according to the increase of rectal prolapse grading.

Anorectal Physiology Testing for Prolapse-What Tests are Necessary?

Rectal prolapse frequently occurs in conjunction with functional and anatomic abnormalities of the bowel and pelvic floor. Prolapse surgery should have as its goal not only to correct the prolapse, but also to improve function to the greatest extent possible. Careful history-taking and physical exam continue to be the surgeon's best tools to put rectal prolapse in its functional context. Physiologic testing augments this and informs surgical decision-making. Defecography can identify concomitant middle compartment prolapse and pelvic floor hernias, potentially targeting patients for urogynecologic consultation or combined repair. Other tests, including manometry, ultrasound, and electrophysiologic testing, may be of utility in select cases. Here, we provide an overview of available testing options and their individual utility in rectal prolapse.

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.

Update on the Pathophysiology and Management of Anorectal Disorders

Anorectal disorders are common and present with overlapping symptoms. They include several disorders with both structural and functional dysfunction(s). Because symptoms alone are poor predictors of the underlying pathophysiology, a diagnosis should only be made after evaluating symptoms and physiologic and structural abnormalities. A detailed history, a thorough physical and digital rectal examination and a systematic evaluation with high resolution and/or high definition three-dimensional (3D) anorectal manometry, 3D anal ultrasonography, magnetic resonance defecography and neurophysiology tests are essential to correctly identify these conditions. These physiological and imaging tests play a key role in facilitating a precise diagnosis and in providing a better understanding of the pathophysiology and functional anatomy. In turn, this leads to better and more comprehensive management using medical, behavioral and surgical approaches. For example, patients presenting with difficult defecation may demonstrate dyssynergic defecation and will benefit from biofeedback therapy before considering surgical treatment of coexisting anomalies such as rectoceles or intussusception. Similarly, patients with significant rectal prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction or patients with complex enteroceles and pelvic organ prolapse may benefit from combined behavioral and surgical approaches, including an open, laparoscopic, transabdominal or transanal, and/or robotic-assisted surgery. Here, we provide an update on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of selected common anorectal disorders.

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.

Optimizing Treatment for Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse is associated with debilitating symptoms and leads to both functional impairment and anatomic distortion. Symptoms include rectal bulge, mucous drainage, bleeding, incontinence, constipation, tenesmus, as well as discomfort, pressure, and pain. The only cure is surgical. The optimal surgical repair is not yet defined though laparoscopic rectopexy with mesh is emerging as a more durable approach. The chosen approach should be individually tailored, taking into account factors such as presence of pelvic floor defects and coexistence of vaginal prolapse, severe constipation, surgical fitness, and whether the patient has had a previous prolapse procedure. Consideration of a multidisciplinary approach is critical in patients with concomitant vaginal prolapse. Surgeons must weigh their familiarity with each approach and should have in their armamentarium both perineal and abdominal approaches. Previous barriers to abdominal procedures, such as age and comorbidities, are waning as minimally invasive approaches have gained acceptance. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is one such approach offering relatively low morbidity, low recurrence rates, and good functional improvement. However, proficiency with this procedure may require advanced training. Robotic rectopexy is another burgeoning approach which facilitates suturing in the pelvis. Successful rectal prolapse surgeries improve function and have low recurrence rates, though it is important to note that correcting the prolapse does not assure functional improvement.

Diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence: Consensus statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists

Faecal incontinence is a common and disturbing condition, which leads to impaired quality of life and huge social and economic costs. Although recent studies have identified novel diagnostic modalities and therapeutic options, the best diagnostic and therapeutic approach is not yet completely known and shared among experts in this field. The Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists selected a pool of experts to constitute a joint committee on the basis of their experience in treating pelvic floor disorders. The aim was to develop a position paper on the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of faecal incontinence, to provide practical recommendations for a cost-effective diagnostic work-up and a tailored treatment strategy. The recommendations were defined and graded on the basis of levels of evidence in accordance with the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and were based on currently published scientific evidence. Each statement was drafted through constant communication and evaluation conducted both online and during face-to-face working meetings. A brief recommendation at the end of each paragraph allows clinicians to find concise responses to each diagnostic and therapeutic issue.

Rectal prolapse: an overview of clinical features, diagnosis, and patient-specific management strategies

Rectal prolapse can present in a variety of forms and is associated with a range of symptoms including pain, incomplete evacuation, bloody and/or mucous rectal discharge, and fecal incontinence or constipation. Complete external rectal prolapse is characterized by a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus, which may be intermittent or may be incarcerated and poses a risk of strangulation. There are multiple surgical options to treat rectal prolapse, and thus care should be taken to understand each patient's symptoms, bowel habits, anatomy, and pre-operative expectations. Preoperative workup includes physical exam, colonoscopy, anoscopy, and, in some patients, anal manometry and defecography. With this information, a tailored surgical approach (abdominal versus perineal, minimally invasive versus open) and technique (posterior versus ventral rectopexy +/- sigmoidectomy, for example) can then be chosen. We propose an algorithm based on available outcomes data in the literature, an understanding of anorectal physiology, and expert opinion that can serve as a guide to determining the rectal prolapse operation that will achieve the best possible postoperative outcomes for individual patients.

Translumbar and transsacral magnetic neurostimulation for the assessment of neuropathy in fecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Neurologic dysfunction causes fecal incontinence, but current techniques for its assessment are limited and controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this work was to investigate spino-rectal and spino-anal motor-evoked potentials simultaneously using lumbar and sacral magnetic stimulation in subjects with fecal incontinence and healthy subjects and to compare motor-evoked potentials and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency in subjects with fecal incontinence.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, observational study.

SETTINGS

The study took place in 2 tertiary care centers.

PATIENTS

Subjects included adults with fecal incontinence and healthy subjects.

INTERVENTIONS

Translumbar and transsacral magnetic stimulations were performed bilaterally by applying a magnetic coil to the lumbar and sacral regions in 50 subjects with fecal incontinence (1 or more episodes per week) and 20 healthy subjects. Both motor-evoked potentials and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency were assessed in 30 subjects with fecal incontinence. Stimulation-induced, motor-evoked potentials were recorded simultaneously from the rectum and anus with 2 pairs of bipolar ring electrodes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Latency and amplitude of motor-evoked potentials after lumbosacral magnetic stimulation and agreement with pudendal nerve terminal motor latency were measured.

RESULTS

When compared with control subjects, 1 or more lumbo-anal, lumbo-rectal, sacro-anal, or sacro-rectal motor-evoked potentials were significantly prolonged (p < 0.01) and were abnormal in 44 (88%) of 50 subjects with fecal incontinence. Positive agreement between abnormal motor-evoked potentials and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency was 63%, whereas negative agreement was 13%. Motor-evoked potentials were abnormal in more (p < 0.05) subjects with fecal incontinence than pudendal nerve terminal motor latency, in 26 (87%) of 30 versus 19 (63%) of 30, and in 24% of subjects with normal pudendal nerve terminal motor latency. There were no adverse events.

LIMITATIONS

Anal EMG was not performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Translumbar and transsacral magnetic stimulation-induced, motor-evoked potentials provide objective evidence for rectal or anal neuropathy in subjects with fecal incontinence and could be useful. The test was superior to pudendal nerve terminal motor latency and appears to be safe and well tolerated.

Comparison of abdominal and perineal procedures for complete rectal prolapse: an analysis of 104 patients

Purpose

Selecting the best surgical approach for treating complete rectal prolapse involves comparing the operative and functional outcomes of the procedures. The aims of this study were to evaluate and compare the operative and functional outcomes of abdominal and perineal surgical procedures for patients with complete rectal prolapse.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients with complete rectal prolapse who had operations at a tertiary referral hospital and a university hospital between March 1990 and May 2011 was conducted. Patients were classified according to the type of operation: abdominal procedure (AP) (n = 64) or perineal procedure (PP) (n = 40). The operative outcomes and functional results were assessed.

Results

The AP group had the younger and more men than the PP group. The AP group had longer operation times than the PP group (165 minutes vs. 70 minutes; P = 0.001) and longer hospital stays (10 days vs. 7 days; P = 0.001), but a lower overall recurrence rate (6.3% vs. 15.0%; P = 0.14). The overall rate of the major complication was similar in the both groups (10.9% vs. 6.8%; P = 0.47). The patients in the AP group complained more frequently of constipation than of incontinence, conversely, in the PP group of incontinence than of constipation.

Conclusion

The two approaches for treating complete rectal prolapse did not differ with regard to postoperative morbidity, but the overall recurrence tended to occur frequently among patients in the PP group. Functional results after each surgical approach need to be considered for the selection of procedure.

Rectal prolapse and intussusception

Rectal prolapse continues to be problematic for both patients and surgeons alike, in part because of increased recurrence rates despite several well-described operations. Patients should be aware that although the prolapse will resolve with operative therapy, functional results may continue to be problematic. This article describes the recommended evaluation, role of adjunctive testing, and outcomes associated with both perineal and abdominal approaches.

Rectal prolapse

Optimal management of rectal prolapse requires multiple clinical considerations with respect to treatment options, particularly for surgeons who must counsel and give realistic expectations to rectal prolapse patients. Rectal prolapse outcomes are good with respect to recurrence. Although posterior rectopexy remains most popular in the United States, increasingly surgeons perform ventral rectopexy to repair rectal prolapse. Functional outcomes vary and are fair after rectal prolapse repair. Although incarceration with rectal prolapse is rare, it is potentially life threatening and requires immediate and effective measures to adequately address in the acute setting.

Consensus statement AIGO/SICCR: Diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation (part I: Diagnosis)

Chronic constipation is a common and extremely trou-blesome disorder that significantly reduces the quality of life, and this fact is consistent with the high rate at which health care is sought for this condition. The aim of this project was to develop a consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation. The commission presents its results in a “Question-Answer” format, including a set of graded recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature and evidence-based medicine. This section represents the consensus for the diagnosis. The history includes information relating to the onset and duration of symptoms and may reveal secondary causes of constipation. The presence of alarm symptoms and risk factors requires investigation. The physical examination should assess the presence of lesions in the anal and perianal region. The evidence does not support the routine use of blood testing and colonoscopy or barium enema for constipation. Various scoring systems are available to quantify the severity of constipation; the Constipation Severity Instrument for constipation and the obstructed defecation syndrome score for obstructed defecation are the most reliable. The Constipation-Related Quality of Life is an excellent tool for evaluating the patient‘s quality of life. No single test provides a pathophysiological basis for constipation. Colonic transit and anorectal manometry define the pathophysiologic subtypes. Balloon expulsion is a simple screening test for defecatory disorders, but it does not define the mechanisms. Defecography detects structural abnormalities and assesses functional parameters. Magnetic resonance imaging and/or pelvic floor sonography can further complement defecography by providing information on the movement of the pelvic floor and the organs that it supports. All these investigations are indicated to differentiate between slow transit constipation and obstructed defecation because the treatments differ between these conditions.

Rectal prolapse

Despite the innovation of more than 100 surgical procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse, no one procedure is best and applicable to all patients. Traditionally, procedures have been divided into abdominal and perineal approaches. The application of the laparoscopic approach to colon and rectal disease has allowed an additional less invasive method of therapy to treat rectal prolapse successfully. In comparison with conventional approaches, laparoscopy has achieved similar functional results and recurrence rates while reducing postoperative pain and hospital length of stay.

Tailored surgery for internal and external rectal prolapse: functional results of 268 patients operated upon by a single surgeon over a 21-year period*

OBJECTIVE

Many procedures are used to treat internal (IRP) and external rectal prolapse (ERP). We report the outcome of surgery tailored in accordance with an evolving Unit algorithm over a 21-year period.

METHOD

Two hundred and sixty-eight patients (151 IRP and 117 ERP) are reported. Perineal procedures (Delorme's mucosectomy, Altemeier's perineal rectosigmoidectomy) were used in frail elderly patients with ERP with abdominal sacrorectopexy or the Frykman-Goldberg procedure in fit patients. In IRP, prolapsectomy was most common with anterior hemi-Delorme's procedures for rectocele and levatorplasty for coincident faecal incontinence. Clinical and functional outcome was assessed over a median of 61 months (range 4-184 months).

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 0.4%. For ERP, a perineal procedure was carried out in 75 (61.4%) cases with a 7.2% complication rate, postoperative incontinence in 20 (26.7%), constipation in four (5.3%) and recurrence in 12 (16%). For 42 abdominal procedures, the complication rate was 5% with incontinence in 7.1%, constipation in eight (19%) and recurrence in five (11.9%). A perineal operation was used in 89.4% of patients with IRP with incontinence in 10.6%, persistent constipation in 48 (52.7%) and recurrence in 25 (27.5%). The overall incontinence rate was 11% following abdominal and 24% following perineal procedures (P < 0.05). Recurrence of ERP was significantly higher following a perineal operation (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Tailored surgery for ERP achieves satisfactory results in terms of recurrence and functional outcome. For patients with IRP, perineal procedures are associated with a high incidence of recurrence and residual evacuatory difficulty.

Overt rectal prolapse and fecal incontinence

PURPOSE

Rectal prolapse is frequently associated with fecal incontinence; however, the relationship is questionable. The study was designed to evaluate fecal incontinence in a large consecutive series of patients who suffered from rectal prolapse, focusing on both past history, anal physiology, and imaging.

METHODS

Eighty-eight consecutive patients who suffered from an overt rectal prolapse (72 women, 16 men; mean age, 51.1 +/- 19.5 years) as a main symptom were analyzed; 48 patients also experienced fecal incontinence compared with 40 without incontinence. Logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The two groups of patients did not differ with respect to parity, weekly stool frequency, main duration of symptoms before referral, occurrence of dyschezia, and digital help to defecate. Patients with prolapse who were older than 45 years (odds ratio (OR), 4.51 (1.49-13.62); P = 0.007) and those with a past history of hemorrhoidectomy (OR, 9.05 (1.68-48.8); P = 0.01) were significantly more incontinent. Incontinent group showed frequent internal anal sphincter defect compared with the continent group (60 vs. 6.2 percent; P = 0.0018).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with overt rectal prolapse, the occurrence of fecal incontinence needs special consideration for age and previous hemorrhoid surgery as causative factors. Anal weakness and sphincter defects are frequently observed.

Recurrence and quality of life following perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Surgical outcome and quality of life (QOL) following perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse remain poorly documented.

METHODS

From 1994 to 2004, patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse were treated exclusively with perineal proctectomy independent of age or comorbidities. Subjective patient assessments and recurrences were determined retrospectively from hospital and clinic records. Consenting patients completed the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI).

RESULTS

Perineal proctectomy was performed in 103 consecutive patients with a median age of 75 years (range 30-94). Most patients underwent concurrent levatorplasty (anterior 85.8%, posterior 67.9%). Durable results were obtained in all patients; the recurrence rate was 8.5% over a mean follow-up of 36 months. Preoperatively, 75.5% of patients reported fecal incontinence, and 32.1% had obstructed defecation. Incontinence significantly improved post-proctectomy (41.5%, p < 0.001), as did constipation (10.4%, p < 0.001). GIQLI respondents reported satisfaction following proctectomy with 63% scoring within one standard deviation of healthy controls. Patients with recurrent prolapse reported a lower QOL. Risk factors for recurrence included duration of prolapse, need for posterior levatorplasty, and prior anorectal surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Perineal proctectomy provides significant relief from fecal incontinence and obstructive symptoms caused by rectal prolapse, with an acceptable recurrence rate and low morbidity.

Perineal approaches to rectal prolapse

The management of full-thickness rectal prolapse involves surgical intervention in the majority of cases. Many procedures have been described. Perineal procedures are generally reserved for patients with multiple comorbid conditions or those considered too elderly or frail to withstand an abdominal surgical approach. They also play an important role in the management of rectal mucosal prolapse. The techniques, advantages, and complications of perineal approaches to rectal prolapse in use today are the focus of this chapter.