Postoperative bowel function, symptoms, and habits in women after vaginal reconstructive surgery

Does a Preoperative Bowel Regimen Change Time to Bowel Movement? A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

This study is important because it aimed to assess an intervention to decrease patient discomfort after a robotic sacral colpopexy.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary outcome was to determine whether preoperative use of polyethylene glycol decreases time to first bowel movement postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include degree of pain with first bowel movement and stool consistency.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a randomized controlled trial. The experimental group was assigned polyethylene glycol daily for 7 days before surgery and the control group was not. All patients received polyethylene glycol postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant reduction in the time to first postoperative bowel movement when preoperative polyethylene glycol was used (mean [SD] in days for the control and experimental groups of 2.32 [0.99] and 1.96 [1.00], P = 0.21). There was a statistically significant reduction in pain levels with the first postoperative bowel movement in the experimental group (median [IQR] of 4 [2-5] vs 1 [0-2], P = 0.0007). Postoperative day 1 pain levels were also significantly lower in the experimental group (median [IQR] of 4 [3-6] vs 2 [0-4], P = 0.0484). In addition, patients had decreased average postoperative pain levels over 7 days with an estimated difference in the median pain levels of 1.88 units (95% confidence interval, 0.64-3.12; P = 0.0038).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative administration of polyethylene glycol did not decrease time to first postoperative bowel movement. Patients in the experimental group exhibited less pain with their first postoperative bowel movement and had improved pain levels on postoperative day 1.

The PSR13, a tool for evaluating patient-perceived recovery after vaginal prolapse repair surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Surgical recovery is the return to preoperative functional, psychologic, and social activity, or a return to normalcy. To date, little is known about the global post-surgical recovery experience from the patients' perspective. The aim of this study was to validate the Post-Discharge Surgical Recovery scale 13 (PSR13) in women undergoing vaginal prolapse repair procedures and evaluate the patient-perceived postoperative recovery experience over a 12-week period.

METHODS

Fifty women undergoing vaginal prolapse repairs completed the PSR13 and global surgical recovery scale (GSR) at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks post-surgery. Validity, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and responsiveness to change over time of the PSR13 was evaluated using descriptive statistics and linear regression models. The proportion of patients deemed fully recovered at each time point (defined as PSR13 score ≥ 80) was also assessed.

RESULTS

The PSR13 correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the single-item recovery scale and showed excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach α = 0.91, range 0.77 to 0.93). The MCID was estimated at 7.0 points. The PSR13 scores improved at varying rates over time, with the greatest amount of patient-perceived recovery occurring between 4 and 6 weeks after surgery. The proportion of patients deemed fully recovered at 6- and 12- weeks postoperatively was 37% and 56%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The PSR13 is a useful instrument to assess overall return to normalcy from the patient's perspective and can be applied to evaluate the recovery experience among women undergoing vaginal prolapse repairs, in both the research and clinical setting.

The Effect of Preoperative Fiber on Postoperative Bowel Function After Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

IMPORTANCE

There are limited studies evaluating the effect of preoperative interventions on postoperative bowel function after prolapse surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate if preoperative fiber intake reduces time to first bowel movement after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a randomized controlled trial of women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery between July 2019 and May 2021. Participants were recruited at their preoperative visit and randomized to receive either 3.4 g psyllium fiber supplementation twice a day for 1 week before surgery or no fiber supplementation before surgery. Postoperative bowel regimen was standardized for both groups. Participants completed a bowel diary for their first postoperative bowel movement after surgery characterized by the Bristol Stool Scale and any associated pain or urgency. The primary outcome was time to first bowel movement. Secondary outcomes included pain associated with first bowel movement.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were enrolled in the study. Seventy-one patients had complete data for primary analysis, with 35 patients in the intervention group and 36 patients in the control group. Demographic and perioperative characteristics were similar between the groups. There was no difference found between the groups with respect to time to first bowel movement (control: 68.3 [SD, 25] hours vs intervention: 66.5 [SD, 23] hours, P = 0.749). There was no difference found with pain associated with first bowel movement (visual analog scale median [interquartile range] control: 2.0 [0.0-4.0] vs intervention: 2.0 [1.0-4.0]; P = 0.655).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative fiber supplementation before prolapse surgery does not improve time to first bowel movement after surgery.

Obstructed defecation syndrome in the first week after pelvic reconstructive surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Research shows that patients are concerned about postoperative bowel function after pelvic reconstructive surgery. The objectives of this study were to estimate the proportion of patients with obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS), a subtype of constipation, in the week after surgery, to identify associated patient-level and perioperative characteristics and the associated bother.

METHODS

Women completed a preoperative and postoperative ODS questionnaire and postoperative bowel diary. Characteristics of women with and without postoperative ODS were compared. Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests compared categorical variables. Student's t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared continuous variables. Multivariate logistic regression was assessed for independent effects. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared the groups with regard to bother. Spearman correlation coefficients described the relationship among bother, postoperative ODS score, and bowel diary variables.

RESULTS

Of the 186 participants enrolled, 165 completed the postoperative ODS questionnaire. Of these, 39 women (23.6%, 95% CI 17.2-30.1) had postoperative ODS. Postoperative ODS was significantly associated with preoperative ODS (p < 0.001), posterior colporrhaphy (p = 0.03), surgery type (p = 0.01), and longer duration of surgery (p = 0.03). Using multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, only preoperative ODS was significantly associated with postoperative ODS (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.73-4.17). Women with postoperative ODS reported more bother with their defecatory symptoms (p < 0.001). The degree of bother was significantly associated with postoperative ODS score (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Using a validated disease-specific questionnaire to identify ODS, this complication was identified in 23.6% of patients in the week after pelvic reconstructive surgery. Preoperative ODS was a significant and important risk factor for this complication.

Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects as many as 50% of parous women, with 14% to 19% of women undergoing a surgical correction. Although surgery for the treatment of POP is common, limited supportive data can be found in the literature regarding the preoperative and postoperative interventions related to these procedures. The main goal of perioperative interventions is to reduce the rate of adverse events while improving women's outcomes following surgical intervention for prolapse. A broad spectrum of perioperative interventions are available, and although the benefits of interventions such as prophylactic antibiotics before abdominal surgery are well established, others are unique to women undergoing POP surgeries and as such need to be investigated separately.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to compare the safety and effectiveness of a range of perioperative interventions versus other interventions or no intervention (control group) at the time of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 30 November 2017), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women undergoing surgical treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse that compared a perioperative intervention related to pelvic organ prolapse surgery versus no treatment or another intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were objective failure at any site and subjective postoperative prolapse symptoms. We also measured adverse effects, focusing on intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, and postoperative urinary tract infection.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs that compared eight different interventions versus no treatment for 1992 women in five countries. Most interventions were assessed by only one RCT with evidence quality ranging from very low to moderate. The main limitation was imprecision, associated with small sample sizes and low event rates.Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) compared with no treatment (three RCTs) - peri-operative intervention The simplest of the PFMT programmes required women to attend six perioperative consultations in the three months surrounding prolapse surgery. Trial results provided no clear evidence of a difference between groups in objective failure at any site at 12 to 24 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.54; two RCTs, 327 women; moderate-quality evidence). With respect to awareness of prolapse, findings were inconsistent. One RCT found no evidence of a difference between groups at 24 months (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.87; one RCT, 305 women; low-quality evidence), and a second small RCT reported symptom reduction from the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Questionnaire completed by the intervention group at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -3.90, 95% CI -6.11 to -1.69; one RCT, 27 women; low-quality evidence). Researchers found no clear differences between groups at 24-month follow-up in rates of repeat surgery (or pessary) for prolapse (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.02; one RCT, 316 women; low-quality evidence).Other interventionsSingle RCTs evaluated the following interventions: preoperative guided imagery (N = 44); injection of vasoconstrictor agent at commencement of vaginal prolapse surgery (N = 76); ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension (N = 91); vaginal pack (N = 116); prophylactic antibiotics for women requiring postoperative urinary catheterisation (N = 159); and postoperative vaginal dilators (N = 60).Two RCTs evaluated bowel preparation (N = 298), and four RCTs assessed the method and timing of postoperative catheterisation (N = 514) - all in different comparisons.None of these studies reported our primary review outcomes. One study reported intraoperative blood loss and suggested that vaginal injection of vasoconstrictors at commencement of surgery may reduce blood loss by a mean of about 30 mL. Another study reported intraoperative ureteral injury and found no clear evidence that ureteral stent placement reduces ureteral injury. Three RCTs reported postoperative urinary tract infection and found no conclusive evidence that rates of urinary tract infection were influenced by use of a vaginal pack, prophylactic antibiotics, or vaginal dilators. Other studies did not report these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was a paucity of data about perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. A structured programme of pelvic floor muscle training before and after prolapse surgery did not consistently demonstrate any benefit for the intervention; however, this finding is based on the results of two small studies. With regard to other interventions (preoperative bowel preparation and injection of vasoconstrictor agent, ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension, postoperative vaginal pack insertion, use of vaginal dilators, prophylactic antibiotics for postoperative catheter care), we found no evidence regarding rates of recurrent prolapse and no clear evidence that these interventions were associated with clinically meaningful reductions in adverse effects, such as intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, or postoperative urinary tract infection.

Bristol Stool Form Scale reliability and agreement decreases when determining Rome III stool form designations

BACKGROUND

Rater reproducibility of the Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), which categorizes stools into one of seven types, is unknown. We sought to determine reliability and agreement by individual stool type and when responses are categorized by Rome III clinical designation as normal or abnormal (constipation or diarrhea).

METHODS

Thirty-four gastroenterology providers from three institutions rated 35 stool photographs using the BSFS. Twenty rerated the photographs.

KEY RESULTS

1190 individual stool type ratings were completed. Though only four photographs had absolute agreement (all Type 1 or Type 7), general agreement was high with 1132 (95.1%) of ratings being within one category type of the modal rating. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the BSFS by individual stool type was excellent with intraclass correlations of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.90, p < 0.001) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91, p < 0.001), respectively. However, agreement decreased when using Rome III designations with 13 (37%) photographs having significantly diverging classifications (semi-interquartile range = 0.5). These 13 photographs were rated by the majority of raters as either type 2 vs type 3 or type 5 vs type 6 stools, representing the boundaries of normal vs abnormal stools. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the BSFS by Rome III clinical categorization decreased with intraclass correlations of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.81, p < 0.001) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.49-0.81, p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

The Bristol Stool Form Scale has excellent reliability and agreement when used to rate individual stool type by raters. However, BSFS reliability and agreement decreases when determining Rome III stool form categories.