A rare case of sigmoid intussusception. A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Colorectal intussusception can be quite challenging to identify, especially its malignant nature. This is a fairly rare presentation and hence, there is not much associated research or cases reported in the literature.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a 69 year old male with lower abdominal pain and a significant rectal prolapse. He has a background history of heavy smoking and significant alcohol intake. The prolapse was irreducible and had papillomatous changes present on the prolapsed mucosa. A computerized tomography (CT) scan demonstrated a large rectal prolapse followed by a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Pelvis which showed an intussusception at the S2-3 level, consistent with a carcinoma, The patient then proceeded to have a flexible sigmoidoscopy with a planned proceed to an anterior resection. Histopathology revealed sigmoid and descending colon adenocarcinoma with mucinous differentiation pT3N0. He had an unremarkable hospital stay and remained well on follow up. His case was discussed at the multidisciplinary meeting and was not for any adjuvant chemotherapy.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Imaging can help aid early diagnosis of a colorectal intussusception. Colonoscopies can be useful too; however these can be tricky to diagnose pre-operatively. If there is a high suspicion of malignancy, routine resection is the preferred method of treatment in cases of colorectal intussusception.

CONCLUSION

Although not a very common presentation, diagnosis of colorectal cancer presenting as an intussusception can be dealt with imminently by considering operative measures.

A step-by-step approach to endorectal proctopexy (ERPP): how we do it

There are many surgical treatments aimed at correcting internal mucosal prolapse and rectocele associated with obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Perineal procedures can be considered as first options in young men in whom an abdominal approach poses risks of sexual dysfunction and in selected women with isolated posterior compartment prolapse who failed conservative treatment. About 20 years ago, we described endorectal proctopexy (ERPP) also known as internal Delorme procedure. The aim of the present study was to describe, with attention to technical details and the aid of a video, the different steps of ERPP for the treatment of ODS. A retrospective analysis of our last 100 cases confirms our initial good results. Complications included suture line dehiscence with consequent stricture in four patients (4%). Bleeding occurred in four (4%) patients and was conservatively treated. Transient anal continence impairment consisting of urgency and soiling occurred in 12 (12%) and 6 (6%) patients, respectively. At 6-month follow-up the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score and ODS score improved from a median preoperative value of 18.9 and 18.5 to 5 and 5, respectively (p < 0.0001). The mean follow-up was 36.05 ± 13.3 (range 12-58) months and anatomical recurrence rate was 6 (%). Due to its excellent safety profile and the ability to tailor the procedure to different disease presentations, we think that ERPP should be part of the basic armamentarium of all colorectal surgeons operating on the pelvic floor.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparative outcome of stapled trans-anal rectal resection and macrogol in the treatment of defecation disorders

AIM: To prospectively assess the efficacy and safety of stapled trans-anal rectal resection (STARR) compared to standard conservative treatment, and whether preoperative symptoms and findings at defecography and anorectal manometry can predict the outcome of STARR.

METHODS: Thirty patients (Female, 28; age: 51 ± 9 years) with rectocele or rectal intussusception, a defecation disorder, and functional constipation were submitted for STARR. Thirty comparable patients (Female, 30; age 53 ± 13 years), who presented with symptoms of rectocele or rectal intussusception and were treated with macrogol, were assessed. Patients were interviewed with a standardized questionnaire at study enrollment and 38 ± 18 mo after the STARR procedure or during macrogol treatment. A responder was defined as an absence of the Rome III diagnostic criteria for functional constipation. Defecography and rectoanal manometry were performed before and after the STARR procedure in 16 and 12 patients, respectively.

RESULTS: After STARR, 53% of patients were responders; during conservative treatment, 75% were responders. After STARR, 30% of the patients reported the use of laxatives, 17% had intermittent anal pain, 13% had anal leakage, 13% required digital facilitation, 6% experienced defecatory urgency, 6% experienced fecal incontinence, and 6% required re-intervention. During macrogol therapy, 23% of the patients complained of abdominal bloating and 13% of borborygmi, and 3% required digital facilitation.No preoperative symptom, defecographic, or manometric finding predicted the outcome of STARR. Post-operative defecography showed a statistically significant reduction (P < 0.05) of the rectal diameter and rectocele. The post-operative anorectal manometry showed that anal pressure and rectal sensitivity were not significantly modified, and that rectal compliance was reduced (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION: STARR is not better and is less safe than macrogol in the treatment of defecation disorders. It could be considered as an alternative therapy in patients unresponsive to macrogol.

Stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele and rectal intussusception

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR), and to analyze the outcome of the patients 12-mo after the operation.

METHODS: From May 2007 to October 2008, 50 female patients with rectocele and/or rectal intussusception underwent STARR. The preoperative status, perioperative and postoperative complications at baseline, 3, 6 and 12-mo were assessed. Data were collected prospectively from standardized questionnaires for the assessment of constipation [constipation scoring system, Longo’s obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) score system, symptom severity score], patient satisfaction (visual analogue scale), and quality of life (Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life Questionnaire).

RESULTS: At a 12-mo follow-up, significant improvement in the constipation scoring system, ODS score system, symptom severity score, visual analog scale and quality of life (P < 0.0001) was observed. The symptoms of constipation improved in 90% of patients at 12 mo after surgery. The self-reported definitive outcome was excellent in 15 (30%) patients, fairly good in 8 (16%), good in 22 (44%), and poor in 5 (10%).

CONCLUSION: STARR can be performed safely without major morbidity. Moreover, the procedure seems to be effective for patients with obstructed defecation associated with symptomatic rectocele and rectal intussusception.