The effect of abdominal ventral rectopexy on faecal incontinence and constipation in patients with internal intra-anal rectal intussusception

Laparoscopic or transanal repair of rectocele? Comparison of a reduction in rectocele size

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the reduction in rectocele size after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) with that after transanal repair (TAR).

METHODS

Forty-six patients with rectocele who underwent LVR and 45 patients with rectocele who received TAR between February 2012 and December 2022 were included. This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. All patients had clinical evidence of a symptomatic rectocele. Bowel function was evaluated using the constipation scoring system (CSS) and fecal incontinence severity index (FISI). Substantial symptom improvement was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the CSS or FISI scores. Evacuation proctography was performed before surgery and 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Constipation was substantially improved in 40-70% of the LVR patients and 70-90% of the TAR patients over 5 years. Fecal incontinence was markedly improved in 60-90% of the LVR patients across 5 years and in 75% of the TAR patients at 1 year. Postoperative proctography showed a reduction in rectocele size in the LVR patients (30 [20-59] mm preoperatively vs. 11 [0-44] mm postoperatively, P < 0.0001) and TAR patients (33 [20-55] mm preoperatively vs. 8 [0-27] mm postoperatively, P < 0.0001). The reduction rate of rectocele size in the LVR patients was significantly lower than that in the TAR patients (63 [3-100] % vs. 79 [45-100] %, P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

The reduction in rectocele size was lower in the patients who underwent LVR than in those who received TAR.

Stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation

Background

The effectiveness of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in patients with defecatory disorders secondary to internal rectal prolapse is poorly evidenced. A UK-based multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed to determine the clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls at medium-term follow-up.

Methods

The randomized controlled trial was conducted from March 1, 2015 TO January 31, 2019. A stepped-wedge RCT design permitted observer-masked data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR (controls) with those who had undergone surgery. Adult participants with radiologically confirmed IRP refractory to conservative treatment were randomized to three arms with different delays before surgery. Efficacy outcome data were collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 weeks). Clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls was defined as ≥ 1.0-point reduction in Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life and/or Symptoms (PAC-QOL and/or PAC-SYM) scores at 24 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included 14-day diary data, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), St Marks incontinence score, the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), the chronic constipation Behavioral Response to Illness Questionnaire (CC-BRQ), and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ).

Results

Of a calculated sample size of 114, only 28 patients (100% female) were randomized from 6 institutions (due mainly to national pause on mesh-related surgery). Nine were assigned to the T0 arm, 10 to T12, and 9 to T24. There were no substantial differences in baseline characteristics between the three arms. Compared to baseline, significant reduction (improvement) in PAC-QOL and PAC-SYM scores were observed at 24 weeks post-surgery (– 1.09 [95% CI – 1.76, – 0.41], p = 0.0019, and – 0.92 [– 1.52, – 0.32], p = 0.0029, respectively) in the 19 patients available for analysis (9 were excluded for dropout [n = 2] or missing primary outcome [n = 7]). There was a clinically significant long-term reduction in PAC-QOL scores (− 1.38 [− 2.94, 0.19], p = 0.0840 at 72 weeks). Statistically significant improvements in PAC-SYM scores persisted to 72 weeks (− 1.51 [− 2.87, − 0.16], p = 0.0289). Compared to baseline, no differences were found in secondary outcomes, except for significant improvements at 24 and 48 weeks on CC-BRQ avoidance behavior (− 14.3 [95% CI − 23.3, − 5.4], and − 0.92 [− 1.52, − 0.32], respectively), CC-BRQ safety behavior (− 13.7 [95% CI − 20.5, − 7.0], and − 13.0 [− 19.8, − 6.1], respectively), and BIPQ negative perceptions (− 16.3 [95% CI − 23.5, − 9.0], and − 10.5 [− 17.9, − 3.2], respectively).

Conclusions

With the caveat of under-powering due to poor recruitment, the study presents the first randomized trial evidence of short-term benefit of LVMR for internal rectal prolapse.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN11747152).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10151-022-02633-w.

Value of Defecography in the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management of the Modified Wells Procedure for Rectal Prolapse

The main aim of this study was to explore the role of defecography in the preoperative diagnosis and postoperative evaluation of rectal prolapse surgery (modified Wells procedure). We collected and summarized the X-ray performance and then analyzed the results of 107 patients with defecatory dysfunction who underwent defecography from January 2020 to March 2021. Furthermore, the preoperative and 6-month postoperative defecography results and clinical symptoms of 25 patients who underwent rectal prolapse surgery (modified Wells procedure) were compared. Results showed that among the 107 patients with defecation dysfunction, women had worse defecography results than men (P < 0.01). A total of 25 patients successfully completed the surgery without complications such as infection and intestinal fistula and there was no recurrence at 12 months of follow-up. Compared with the preoperative results, anorectal angle during defecation, the depth of rectocele, and perineal descent were significantly improved after the surgery (P < 0.01). Moreover, the patient's feeling of obstructed defecation and incomplete defecation was significantly relieved compared to that before the procedure (P < 0.01). In conclusion, defecography can be used to diagnose rectal prolapse preoperatively and evaluate the surgical effect combined with clinical symptoms postoperatively, which provides a clinical reference.

Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for rectal prolapse. Both synthetic and biologic mesh are used. No consensus exists on the preferred type of mesh material. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish an overview of the current literature on mesh-related complications and recurrence after VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh to aid evidence-based decision making in preferred mesh material.

METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane was performed (from inception until September 2020). Studies evaluating patients who underwent VMR with synthetic or biologic mesh were eligible. The MINORS score was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were eligible after qualitative assessment. Eleven studies reported on mesh-related complications including 4001 patients treated with synthetic mesh and 762 treated with biologic mesh. The incidence of mesh-related complications ranged between 0 and 2.4% after synthetic versus 0-0.7% after biologic VMR. Synthetic mesh studies showed a pooled incidence of mesh-related complications of 1.0% (95% CI 0.5-1.7). Data of biologic mesh studies could not be pooled. Twenty-nine studies reported on the risk of recurrence in 2371 synthetic mesh patients and 602 biologic mesh patients. The risk of recurrence varied between 1.1 and 18.8% for synthetic VMR versus 0-15.4% for biologic VMR. Cumulative incidence of recurrence was found to be 6.1% (95% CI 4.3-8.1) and 5.8% (95% CI 2.9-9.6), respectively. The clinical and statistical heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSIONS

No definitive conclusions on preferred mesh type can be made due to the quality of the included studies with high heterogeneity amongst them.

Non-drug therapies for the management of chronic constipation in adults: the CapaCiTY research programme including three RCTs

Background

Chronic constipation affects 1–2% of adults and significantly affects quality of life. Beyond the use of laxatives and other basic measures, there is uncertainty about management, including the value of specialist investigations, equipment-intensive therapies using biofeedback, transanal irrigation and surgery.

Objectives

(1) To determine whether or not standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback is more clinically effective than standardised specialist-led habit training alone, and whether or not outcomes of such specialist-led interventions are improved by stratification to habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback or habit training alone based on prior knowledge of anorectal and colonic pathophysiology using standardised radiophysiological investigations; (2) to compare the impact of transanal irrigation initiated with low-volume and high-volume systems on patient disease-specific quality of life; and (3) to determine the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with controls at short-term follow-up.

Design

The Chronic Constipation Treatment Pathway (CapaCiTY) research programme was a programme of national recruitment with a standardised methodological framework (i.e. eligibility, baseline phenotyping and standardised outcomes) for three randomised trials: a parallel three-group trial, permitting two randomised comparisons (CapaCiTY trial 1), a parallel two-group trial (CapaCiTY trial 2) and a stepped-wedge (individual-level) three-group trial (CapaCiTY trial 3).

Setting

Specialist hospital centres across England, with a mix of urban and rural referral bases.

Participants

The main inclusion criteria were as follows: age 18–70 years, participant self-reported problematic constipation, symptom onset > 6 months before recruitment, symptoms meeting the American College of Gastroenterology’s constipation definition and constipation that failed treatment to a minimum basic standard. The main exclusion criteria were secondary constipation and previous experience of study interventions.

Interventions

CapaCiTY trial 1: group 1 – standardised specialist-led habit training alone (n = 68); group 2 – standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (n = 68); and group 3 – standardised radiophysiological investigations-guided treatment (n = 46) (allocation ratio 3 : 3 : 2, respectively). CapaCiTY trial 2: transanal irrigation initiated with low-volume (group 1, n = 30) or high-volume (group 2, n = 35) systems (allocation ratio 1 : 1). CapaCiTY trial 3: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy performed immediately (n = 9) and after 12 weeks’ (n = 10) and after 24 weeks’ (n = 9) waiting time (allocation ratio 1 : 1 : 1, respectively).

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were standardised outcomes for all three trials. The primary clinical outcome was mean change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score at the 6-month, 3-month or 24-week follow-up. The secondary clinical outcomes were a range of validated disease-specific and psychological scoring instrument scores. For cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life-year estimates were determined from individual participant-level cost data and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, data. Participant experience was investigated through interviews and qualitative analysis.

Results

A total of 275 participants were recruited. Baseline phenotyping demonstrated high levels of symptom burden and psychological morbidity. CapaCiTY trial 1: all interventions (standardised specialist-led habit training alone, standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback and standardised radiophysiological investigations-guided habit training alone or habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback) led to similar reductions in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score (approximately –0.8 points), with no statistically significant difference between habit training alone and habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (–0.03 points, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.27 points; p = 0.8445) or between standardised radiophysiological investigations and no standardised radiophysiological investigations (0.22 points, 95% confidence interval –0.11 to 0.55 points; p = 0.1871). Secondary outcomes reflected similar levels of benefit for all interventions. There was no evidence of greater cost-effectiveness of habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback or stratification by standardised radiophysiological investigations compared with habit training alone (with the probability that habit training alone is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gain; p = 0.83). Participants reported mixed experiences and similar satisfaction in all groups in the qualitative interviews. CapaCiTY trial 2: at 3 months, there was a modest reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score, from a mean of 2.4 to 2.2 points (i.e. a reduction of 0.2 points), in the low-volume transanal irrigation group compared with a larger mean reduction of 0.6 points in the high-volume transanal irrigation group (difference –0.37 points, 95% confidence interval –0.89 to 0.15 points). The majority of participants preferred high-volume transanal irrigation, with substantial crossover to high-volume transanal irrigation during follow-up. Compared with low-volume transanal irrigation, high-volume transanal irrigation had similar costs (median difference –£8, 95% confidence interval –£240 to £221) and resulted in significantly higher quality of life (0.093 quality-adjusted life-years, 95% confidence interval 0.016 to 0.175 quality-adjusted life-years). CapaCiTY trial 3: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy resulted in a substantial short-term mean reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score (–1.09 points, 95% confidence interval –1.76 to –0.41 points) and beneficial changes in all other outcomes; however, significant increases in cost (£5012, 95% confidence interval £4446 to £5322) resulted in only modest increases in quality of life (0.043 quality-adjusted life-years, 95% confidence interval –0.005 to 0.093 quality-adjusted life-years), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £115,512 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Conclusions

Excluding poor recruitment and underpowering of clinical effectiveness analyses, several themes emerge: (1) all interventions studied have beneficial effects on symptoms and disease-specific quality of life in the short term; (2) a simpler, cheaper approach to nurse-led behavioural interventions appears to be at least as clinically effective as and more cost-effective than more complex and invasive approaches (including prior investigation); (3) high-volume transanal irrigation is preferred by participants and has better clinical effectiveness than low-volume transanal irrigation systems; and (4) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in highly selected participants confers a very significant short-term reduction in symptoms, with low levels of harm but little effect on general quality of life.

Limitations

All three trials significantly under-recruited [CapaCiTY trial 1, n = 182 (target 394); CapaCiTY trial 2, n = 65 (target 300); and CapaCiTY trial 3, n = 28 (target 114)]. The numbers analysed were further limited by loss before primary outcome.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11791740, ISRCTN11093872 and ISRCTN11747152.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Modified Gant procedure for treatment of internal rectal prolapse in elderly women

BACKGROUND

Although rectal prolapse is not a life-threatening condition, it can cause defecation disorders, anal incontinence, sensory abnormalities, and other problems that can seriously affect quality of life.

AIM

To study the efficacy of the modified Gant procedure for elderly women with internal rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Sixty-three elderly female patients with internal rectal prolapse underwent the modified Gant procedure. The preoperative and postoperative anal symptoms, Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL), Wexner incontinence score, incontinence quality of life score, and complications (massive hemorrhage, infection, anorectal stenosis, and anorectal fistula) were compared.

RESULTS

The improvement rates of postoperative symptoms were defecation disorders (84.5%), anal distention (69.6%), defecation sensation (81.4%), frequent defecation (88.7%), and anal incontinence (42.9%) (P < 0.05). All dimensions and total scores of the PAC-QOL after the procedure were lower than those before the operation (P < 0.05). The postoperative anal incontinence score and Wexner score were significantly lower than those before the procedure (P < 0.05). The quality of life and total scores of postoperative anal incontinence were significantly higher than those before the procedure (P < 0.05). There were no serious complications and no deaths.

CONCLUSION

The modified Gant procedure has significant advantages in the treatment of elderly women with internal rectal prolapse.

European Society of Coloproctology guidance on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery

This is a comprehensive and rigorous review of currently available data on the use of mesh in the pelvis in colorectal surgery. This guideline outlines the limitations of available data and the challenges of interpretation, followed by best possible recommendations.

Suture rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for complete full-thickness rectal prolapse and intussusception: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR).

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on the recurrence rates of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) or intussusception (IS) after SR and VMR. Results were pooled and procedures compared; a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients with CRP and IS who underwent VMR using biological versus synthetic meshes. A meta-analysis of studies comparing SR and VMR was undertaken. The Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies score, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to assess the quality of studies.

Results

Twenty-two studies with 976 patients were included in the SR group and 31 studies with 1605 patients in the VMR group; among these studies, five were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall, in patients with CRP, the recurrence rate was 8.6 per cent after SR and 3.7 per cent after VMR (P < 0.001). However, in patients with IS treated using VMR, the recurrence rate was 9.7 per cent. Recurrence rates after VMR did not differ with use of biological or synthetic mesh in patients treated for CRP (4.1 versus 3.6 per cent; P = 0.789) and or IS (11.4 versus 11.0 per cent; P = 0.902). Results from the meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, and the difference in recurrence rates between SR and VMR groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.76).

Conclusion

Although the systematic review showed a higher recurrence rate after SR than VMR for treatment of CRP, this result was not confirmed by meta-analysis. Therefore, robust RCTs comparing SR and biological VMR are required.

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.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with sacrocolpopexy for coexisting pelvic organ prolapse and external rectal prolapse

OBJECTIVES

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) POP is defined as the protrusion of pelvic organs from the vaginal canal. POP often coexists with internal rectal prolapse or external rectal prolapse (ERP). A series of patients with coexisting POP and ERP who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) combined with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) are reported here.

METHODS

Seven patients underwent LVR and LSC together. Fecal incontinence was assessed by the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), constipation was assessed by the Constipation Scoring System (CSS), and urinary incontinence was assessed by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF). Anatomical disorders were assessed by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and defecography.

RESULTS

The patients' median age was 81 (60-88) years. The median operative time was 380 (282-430) minutes. The median postoperative hospital stay was 3 (1-5) days. There were no postoperative complications. The FISI, CSS, POP-Q, and defecography findings improved postoperatively; however, the ICIQ-SF deteriorated in 2 of 5 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

LVR combined with LSC for coexisting POP and ERP is feasible.

Stepped-wedge randomised trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is an established treatment for external full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, its clinical efficacy in patients with internal prolapse is uncertain due to the lack of high-quality evidence.

Methods

An individual level, stepped-wedge randomised trial has been designed to allow observer-blinded data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR with those who have undergone surgery. Adults with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse, unresponsive to prior conservative management, will be eligible to participate. They will be randomised to three arms with different delays before surgery (0, 12 and 24 weeks). Efficacy outcome data will be collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks). The primary objective is to determine clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls with reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) at 24 weeks serving as the primary outcome. Secondary objectives are to determine: (1) the clinical effectiveness of LVMR to 48 weeks to a maximum of 72 weeks; (2) pre-operative determinants of outcome; (3) relevant health economics for LVMR; (4) qualitative evaluation of patient and health professional experience of LVMR and (5) 30-day morbidity and mortality rates.

Discussion

An individual-level, stepped-wedge, randomised trial serves the purpose of providing an untreated comparison for the active treatment group, while at the same time allowing the waiting-listed participants an opportunity to obtain the intervention at a later date. In keeping with the basic ethical tenets of this design, the average waiting time for LVMR (12 weeks) will be shorter than that for routine services (24 weeks).

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11747152. Registered on 30 September 2015. The trial was prospectively registered (first patient enrolled on 21 March 2016).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2456-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations: Results II: Hitching procedures for the rectum (rectal suspension)

AIM

To assess the outcomes of rectal suspension procedures (forms of rectopexy) 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

Eighteen articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 1238 patients. All studies reported only on laparoscopic approaches. Length of procedures ranged between 1.5 to 3.5 h, and length of stay between 4 to 5 days. Data on harms were inconsistently reported and heterogeneous, making estimates of harm tentative and imprecise. Morbidity rates ranged between 5-15%, with mesh complications accounting for 0.5% of patients overall. No mortality was reported after any procedures in a total of 1044 patients. Although inconsistently reported, good or satisfactory outcome occurred in 83% (74-91%) of patients; 86% (20-97%) of patients reported improvements in constipation after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). About 2-7% of patients developed anatomical recurrence. Patient selection was inconsistently documented. As most common indication, high grade rectal intussusception was corrected in 80-100% of cases after robotic or LVMR. Healing of prolapse-associated solitary rectal ulcer syndrome occurred in around 80% of patients after LVMR.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supporting rectal suspension procedures is currently derived from poor quality studies. Methodologically robust trials are needed to inform future clinical decision making.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception using a biological mesh

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) is a nerve-sparing technique for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Concerns about the use of synthetic meshes in the pelvis and the associated risk of erosion have led to the recent use of biological meshes in some colorectal units. This retrospective study aims to assess the outcomes of patients undergoing LVR using a noncross-linked nondermal biological mesh.

METHOD

The medical notes of all patients who underwent LVR between 1 December 2011 and 31 May 2014 were reviewed. The rate of obstructed defaecation before surgery was retrospectively determined from medical records using the Rome III criteria. The rates of obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence following surgery were determined using a self-reported questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients had LVR between 1 December 2011 and 31 May 2014. Their mean age was 57.3 ± 2.5 years and the mean follow-up was 23 ± 1 months. There were seven (13.7%) postoperative complications. In total, 45 (88%) patients completed the functional outcome questionnaires. Before surgery, 33 (73.3%) patients complained of symptoms of obstructed defaecation. At the end of follow-up, 22 (48.8%, P = 0.001) patients continued to have some symptoms of obstructed defaecation. Before surgery, 12 (26.7%) patients complained of faecal incontinence. At the end of follow-up, only three (6.7%, P = 0.004) patients reported faecal incontinence. At the end of follow-up, recurrence of symptoms had occurred in six (13.3%) patients.

CONCLUSION

LVR using a biological mesh is safe and results in significant reduction in symptoms associated with external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception.

Abdominal rectopexy for the treatment of internal rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Internal rectal prolapse (IRP) is a unique functional disorder that presents with a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms, including constipation and/or faecal incontinence (FI). The present review aims to analyse the results of trials evaluating the role of abdominal rectopexy in the treatment of IRP with regard to regarding functional and technical outcomes.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature for the role of abdominal rectopexy in patients with IRP was conducted. PubMed/Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for published and unpublished studies from January 2000 to December 2015.

RESULTS

We reviewed 14 studies including 1301 patients (1180 women) of a median age of 59 years. The weighted mean rates of improvement of obstructed defaecation (OD) and FI across the studies were 73.9% and 60.2%, respectively. Twelve studies reported clinical recurrence in 84 (6.9%) patients. The weighted mean recurrence rate of IRP among the studies was 5.8% (95% CI: 4.2-7.5). Two hundred and thirty complications were reported with a weighted mean complication rate of 15%. Resection rectopexy had lower recurrence rates than did ventral rectopexy, whereas ventral rectopexy achieved better symptomatic improvement, a shorter operative time and a lower complication rate.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal rectopexy for IRP attained satisfactory results with improvement of OD and, to a lesser extent, FI, a low incidence of recurrence and an acceptable morbidity rate. Although ventral rectopexy was associated with higher recurrence rates, lower complication rates and better improvement of bowel symptoms than resection rectopexy, these findings cannot be confirmed owing to the limitations of this review.

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.

Internal rectal prolapse: Definition, assessment and management in 2016

Internal rectal prolapse (IRP) is a well-recognized pelvic floor disorder mainly seen during defecatory straining. The symptomatic expression of IRP is complex, encompassing fecal continence (56%) and/or evacuation disorders (85%). IRP cannot be characterized easily by clinical examination alone and the emergence of dynamic defecography (especially MRI) has allowed a better comprehension of its pathophysiology and led to the proposition of a severity score (Oxford score) that can guide management. Decision for surgical management should be multidisciplinary, discussed after a complete work-up, and only after medical treatment has failed. Information should be provided to the patient, outlining the goals of treatment, the potential complications and results. Stapled trans-anal rectal resection (STARR) has been considered as the gold standard for IRP treatment. However, inconsistent results (failure observed in up to 20% of cases, and fecal incontinence occurring in up to 25% of patients at one year) have led to a decrease in its indications. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy has substantial advantages in solving the functional problems due to IRP (efficacy on evacuation and resolution of continence symptoms in 65-92%, and 73-97% of patients, respectively) and is currently considered as the gold standard therapy for IRP once the decision to operate has been made.

[Alloplastic material in prolapse surgery : Indications and postoperative outcome of ventral rectopexy]

BACKGROUND

In rectopexy the use of meshes provides stability by mechanical support as well as by the induction of scar formation; however, one of the problems of conventional methods of mesh rectopexy is that many patients postoperatively suffer from functional disorders, such as fecal incontinence and stool evacuation disorders. One reason is the damage of vegetative nerves following dorsal and lateral mobilization of the rectum, which is required for positioning of the mesh. In 2004 D'Hoore and Penninckx first described the method of ventral rectopexy, a new technique of mesh rectopexy which allows preservation of the autonomic nerves.

OBJECTIVE

Does ventral rectopexy provide advantages regarding functional outcome, complications and recurrence rates?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was carried out in the databases PubMed and Medline for studies on ventral rectoplexy. Presentation and analysis of the current state of relevant studies relating to ventral rectopexy.

RESULTS

Ventral rectopexy is characterized by a low complication rate and good functional results in terms of improvement of incontinence, constipation and stool evacuation disorders. The indications for ventral rectopexy are considered in patients with external prolapse of the rectum. Also in a well-selected patient population internal prolapse, rectocele as well as enterocele accompanied by obstructive defecation syndrome represent relative indications for ventral rectopexy.

CONCLUSION

In order to obtain a valid assessment of the value of this procedure it is crucial to improve the current lack of evidence (level 3) by prospective randomized studies that compare ventral rectopexy with other surgical techniques and nonsurgical treatment options.

Quality of life after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

AIM

This study evaluated continence, constipation and quality of life (QOL) before and after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) METHOD: Between February 2012 and July 2014, patients who underwent LVR for external rectal prolapse (ERP) and/or rectoanal intussusception (RAI) were prospectively included. A standard questionnaire including the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), the Constipation Scoring System (CSS) and QOL instruments (Short-Form 36 Health Survey, Fecal Incontinence QOL scale, Patient Assessment of Constipation-QOL) were administered before and after operation. Psychiatric patients and those with dementia were excluded from the study. Defaecography was performed 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were included in the study period and 44 (19 with ERP, 25 with RAI) completed the follow-up questionnaire and were reviewed after a median of 26 (range 12-42) months. There was no recurrent ERP. Postoperative defaecography showed new-onset RAI in 6 and persistent RAI in 1. One year after surgery, incontinence was improved in 30/39 patients (77%) and constipation in 19/32 (59%). The FISI scores reduced between preoperative status and 1 year after surgery [32 (13-61) vs 11 (0-33), P < 0.0001]. The CSS scores also reduced [preoperative 12 (5-18) vs 1 year 5 (1-12), P < 0.0001]. Compared with the preoperative scores, almost all of the scale scores on the three kinds of QOL instruments significantly improved over time. The presence of new-onset or persistent RAI did not have an adverse effect on the improvement of QOL.

CONCLUSION

LVR improves both generic and symptom-specific QOL with good functional results.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in complex pelvic floor disorder

AIM

For the treatment of complex pelvic organ prolapse, many different surgical procedures are described without any comparative studies available. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy after D'Hoore is one of the methods, which is publicized to treat patients with symptomatic rectocele, enterocele and rectal prolapse.

METHOD

All patients who received ventral mesh rectopexy since 07/10 for symptomatic rectocele, enterocele and possible rectal prolapse I ° or II ° in terms of a complex pelvic floor disorder were included in this follow-up study. The Wexner score for incontinence was recorded (range 0-20), the constipation score of Herold (r6-30) was evaluated as well as supplementary questions compiled by D'Hoore concerning outlet symptoms (r0-20). In addition, the quality of life (SF-12) was requested.

RESULTS

Thirty-one women were operated in the period, and 27 were eligible to be included in the present study. Median follow-up was 22 months (2-39). The preoperative Wexner score was in median 8 (0-20), going down to 6 (0-20) without significance (p = 0.735). The constipation score decreased significantly from median 14 (9-21) to 11 (6-25) (p = 0.007). The median score after D'Hoore was preoperatively 8 (4-16) and 4.5 (0-17) postoperatively (p = 0.004). The SF-12 values were preoperatively significantly reduced compared to the normal population; postoperatively, they equalized.

CONCLUSION

Two years after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, constipation and quality of life improve significantly in patients with complex pelvic organ prolapse. The grade of incontinence remains essentially the same, but was not the dominant clinical problem in the treated patients of our study.

STATEMENT

The improvement in constipation and quality of life after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for obstructive defecation is encouraging. However, the impact on sexual life differs; some patients improve but a relevant number reports a change for the worse.

Anterior intussusception descent during defecation is correlated with the severity of fecal incontinence in patients with rectoanal intussusception

BACKGROUND

Rectoanal intussusception (RAI) is a common finding on evacuation proctography in patients with defecation disorders. However, it remains unclear whether intussusception morphology affects the severity of fecal incontinence (FI). The aim of this study was to examine the effect of morphology during defecation on the severity of FI in patients with RAI.

METHODS

We included 80 patients with FI who were diagnosed as having RAI on evacuation proctography. Various morphological parameters were measured, and the level of RAI was divided by the extent of descent onto (level I) or into (level II) the anal sphincter. FI symptoms were documented using the FI Severity Index (FISI).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients had level I and 52 had level II RAI. The mean (range) FISI score was 24.0 (8-47). FISI scores tended to be significantly higher in level II than in level I [26.3 (10-47) vs. 21.8 (8-42); p = 0.05]. The mean anterior intussusception descent was significantly greater in level II than in level I [24.2 (9.2-39.5) vs. 17.7 (7.8-39.4) mm; p < 0.0001]. Regression analysis showed that anterior intussusception descent was predictive of increased FISI scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The severity of FI may be affected by anterior intussusception descent in patients with RAI.

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.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectoanal intussusception: postoperative evaluation with proctography

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy can relieve symptoms of obstructed defecation and fecal incontinence in patients with rectoanal intussusception. However, pelvic floor imaging after surgery has not been reported.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess the outcome of patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectoanal intussusception, with special reference to the postoperative findings on evacuation proctography.

DESIGN

This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

The study was conducted from 2012 to 2013 at the Department of Surgery, Kameda Medical Center, Japan.

PATIENTS

We included 26 patients with symptomatic rectoanal intussusception.

INTERVENTION

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Evacuation proctography was performed before and 6 months after the procedure. Defecatory function was evaluated using the Constipation Scoring System and Fecal Incontinence Severity Index.

RESULTS

Of 26 patients with rectoanal intussusception preoperatively, 22 had symptoms of obstructed defecation and 21 complained of fecal incontinence. Postoperatively, rectoanal intussusception was eliminated in all patients, though 8 developed recto rectal intussusception. There was an overall reduction in both grade 2 rectocele size (median preop 26 mm vs. postop 11 mm; p < 0.0001) and pelvic floor descent (median preop 26 mm vs. postop 20 mm; p < 0.0001). 6 months after surgery, a reduction of at least 50% was observed in the Constipation Scoring System score for 9 patients (41%) with obstructive defecation and in the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score for 14 incontinent patients (67%).

LIMITATIONS

This was a preliminary study with a small sample size, no control group, and short follow-up time.

CONCLUSION

Evacuation proctography showed anatomical correction in patients with rectoanal intussusception who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. However, the data also indicate that such correction does not necessarily result in meaningful symptomatic relief.

Ventral colporectopexy for overt rectal prolapse and obstructed defaecation syndrome: a systematic review

AIM

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (VR) with the use of prosthesis has been advocated for both overt rectal prolapse (ORP) and obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS). The present study reviews the short-term and functional results of laparoscopic VR.

METHOD

A search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid and Cochrane databases on all studies reporting on VR for ORP, ODS and other anatomical abnormalities of the pelvic floor from 2004 until February 2013. No language restrictions were made. All studies on VR were reviewed systematically. The main outcomes were intra-operative complications, conversion, procedure duration, short-term mortality and morbidity, length of stay, recurrence of ORP, recurrence of anatomical disorder, faecal incontinence and constipation, quality of life (QoL) score and patient satisfaction. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by three observers.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 1460 patients were eligible for analysis. The conversion rate ranged from 0 to 14.3%. No mortality was reported. The immediate postoperative morbidity rate was 8.6%. Length of stay ranged from 1 to 7 days. A significant improvement in constipation and incontinence symptoms was observed in the postoperative period for both ORP and ODS (chi-square test, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic VR is a safe and effective procedure for ORP and ODS. Longer follow-up is required, and studies comparing VR with standard rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection are not yet available.

The role of synthetic and biologic materials in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is a significant medical problem that poses a diagnostic and management dilemma. These diseases cause serious morbidity in those affected and treatment is sought for relief of pelvic pain, rectal bleeding, chronic constipation, obstructed defecation, and fecal incontinence. Numerous procedures have been proposed to treat these conditions; however, the search continues as colorectal surgeons attempt to find the procedure that would optimally treat these conditions. The use of prosthetics in the repair of pelvic organ prolapse has become prevalent as the benefits of their use are realized. While advances in biologic mesh and new surgical techniques promise improved functional outcomes with decreased complication rates without de novo symptoms, the debate concerning the best prosthetic material, synthetic or biologic, remains controversial. Furthermore, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy has emerged as a procedure that could potentially fill this role and is rapidly becoming the procedure of choice for the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

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.

Surgical approaches to fecal incontinence in the adult

Surgical treatment of anal incontinence is indicated only for patients who have failed medical treatment. Sphincterorraphy is suitable in case of external sphincter rupture. In the last decade, sacral nerve stimulation has proven to be a scientifically validated solution when no sphincter lesion has been identified and more recently has also been proposed as an alternative in cases of limited sphincter defect. Anal reconstruction using artificial sphincters is still under evaluation in the literature, while indications for dynamic graciloplasty are decreasing due to its complexity and high morbidity. Less risky techniques involving intra-sphincteric injections are being developed, with encouraging preliminary results that need to be confirmed especially in the medium- and long-term. Antegrade colonic enemas instilled via cecostomy (Malone) can be an alternative to permanent stoma in patients who are well instructed in the techniques of colonic lavage. Stomal diversion is a solution of last resort.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for fecal incontinence associated with high-grade internal rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

The role of internal rectal prolapse in the origin of fecal incontinence remains to be defined. In our institution, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is offered to patients with high-grade internal prolapse and fecal incontinence.

OBJECTIVE

The present study was designed to evaluate the functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in patients with fecal incontinence associated with high-grade internal rectal prolapse.

DESIGN

This study was designed as a prospective observational study.

SETTINGS

The study took place in a university hospital.

PATIENTS

Between 2009 and 2011, 72 patients with fecal incontinence not responding to maximum medical treatment (including biofeedback) were included. All patients had a grade III or grade IV rectal prolapse.

INTERVENTION

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preoperative endoanal ultrasonography and anorectal manometry were performed. Fecal continence was evaluated by using the Rockwood Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score before and 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

The median fecal incontinence severity index score 1 year after surgery was lower than the median score before surgery (15 versus 31; p < 0.01), representing an improvement in fecal continence.

LIMITATIONS

This was a preliminary observational study with no control group, no postoperative proctography, and no postoperative anal physiology.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy can improve symptoms of fecal incontinence in patients with a high-grade internal rectal prolapse. Internal rectal prolapse contributes to the multifactorial origin of fecal incontinence.

[Transabdominal procedures for functional bowel diseases]

Incontinence and constipation can occur in cases of pelvic floor dysfunction. Purely morphological changes without severe clinical symptoms are not an indication for surgery. Abdominal operations can be classified into procedures with dorsal (with or without bowel resection and with or without mesh implantation) and procedures with ventral rectopexy (with mesh). With respect to constipation and incontinence suture rectopexy alone is inferior to all other procedures. Dorsal and ventral mesh rectopexy and resection rectopexy are all comparable with respect to improvement of incontinence. Ventral rectopexy without dorsal mobilization and resection rectopexy are superior to mesh rectopexy with respect to constipation. Due to poor evidential status treatment is carried out from a pragmatic viewpoint.

Is robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation?

AIM

Function, morbidity and recurrence of symptoms after robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) were compared.

METHOD

Forty-four patients operated on for PFD with RVMR were compared with 74 of 144 patients who had had LVMR performed between 2008 and 2011. The groups were matched for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status and previous hysterectomy. The same surgical technique and type of mesh were used. Early postoperative morbidity and function [obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS), incontinence scores (CCF) and sexual activity] were compared.

RESULTS

Operation time was longer in RVMR compared with LVMR (191 ± 26 vs 163 ± 39 min; P = 0.0002). RVMR showed less blood loss (8 ± 34 vs 42 ± 88 ml; P = 0.012) and fewer early complications (2% vs 11%; P = 0.019). ODS and CCF scores improved in both groups. Patients after RVMR reported a better improvement in digitation, straining and satisfaction after defaecation. There was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative ODS score in favour of RVMR (P = 0.004). Sexually active patients in both groups reported a similar improvement. There was no difference in early recurrence (P = 0.692).

CONCLUSION

Although not a randomized comparison, this study shows that ventral mesh rectopexy performed by the robot was followed by better function then LVMR.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective long-term evaluation of functional results and quality of life

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse combines the advantages of a minimally invasive approach with the low recurrence rate observed after abdominal procedures. To date, only a few long-term functional studies and no quality of life assessment are available. The aim of this study was to assess long-term functional outcomes and quality of life after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and December 2008, patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse and/or rectocele were prospectively included. Fecal incontinence and constipation were scored (Wexner score and Rome II criteria). Quality of life was assessed using the gastrointestinal quality of life form (GIQLI).

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included and 30 (91 %) completed all the questionnaires. There was no morbidity or mortality. The mean length of hospital stay was 5 ± 1 days (range 3-7 days). After a mean follow-up of 42 ± 7 months (range 32-52 months), recurrence of rectocele was observed in two patients (6 %). At the end of follow-up, constipation was improved in 13/18 patients (72 %) and two patients (7 %) presented de novo constipation. The patients' Wexner score improved between preoperative status and end of follow-up (12 ± 7 vs. 4 ± 3, p = 0.002). Compared to the preoperative score, quality of life significantly improved over time: 77 ± 21 preoperatively versus 107 ± 17 at 1 year versus 109 ± 18 at the end of follow-up (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study showed that laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was associated with excellent postoperative outcomes and a low long-term recurrence rate. Long-term functional results were excellent in terms of continence, with significant improvement of quality of life and without worsening constipation.

Stapled transanal rectal resection and sacral nerve stimulation - impact on faecal incontinence and quality of life

AIM

The aim of the study was to assess the impact of stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) on pre-existing faecal incontinence and quality of life in patients suffering from obstructive defaecation syndrome (ODS) and to evaluate the efficiency of sequential sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for improvement of persistent incontinence after STARR.

METHOD

Thirty-one patients with ODS and major faecal incontinence prior to STARR were prospectively enrolled. The outcome was measured using the Cleveland Clinic Constipation and Incontinence score (CCS, CCIS), Faecal Incontinence Qualities-of-Life Index (FIQL), Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality-of-Life (PAC-QOL) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS).

RESULTS

The overall levels of constipation (CCS from 13.1 ± 3.8 to 6.2 ± 5.4; P < 0.001) and incontinence (CCIS from 12.6 ± 3.2 to 9.4 ± 5.1; P = 0.005) were significantly improved after STARR; concordantly, the global and specific quality of life were significantly improved. Following postoperative constipation and incontinence, three different groups of patients were differentially referred to SNS. In group I (n = 16, 52%), both constipation (CCS from 12.6 ± 4.0 to 3.6 ± 1.9; P < 0.001) and incontinence (CCSI from 12.43 ± 3.2 to 5.1 ± 1.9; P < 0.001) were improved. In group II (n = 8, 25%), only constipation was improved (CCS from 12.3 ± 2.3 to 3.3 ± 2.2; P < 0.001), while incontinence persisted (CCIS from 12.8 ± 2.9 to 13.1 ± 3.1; P > 0.05). In group III (n = 7, 23%) there was no improvement at all. Sacral nerve stimulation was successfully carried out in six (85%) of seven patients in group II (post-SNS CCSI 6.1 ± 1.7; P = 0.01) but failed in five of five patients in group III.

CONCLUSION

Stapled transanal rectal resection improves quality of life in ODS patients with both severe constipation and faecal incontinence. Sacral nerve stimulation may efficiently improve persisting incontinence after STARR in selected patients.