Obstructive defecation syndrome: 19 years of experience with laparoscopic resection rectopexy. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17:307-314. [PMID: 23152078 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-012-0925-3]

A novel perspective on constipation secondary to sigmoidocele: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

Sigmoidocele, which is a type of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS), is a peritoneal hernia of the pelvic floor that has been seldom studied individually. This study investigated the anatomic characteristics of sigmoidocele based on imaging features.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort population comprised adult patients with ODS who underwent defecography between December 2017 and July 2020. Sigmoidocele was classified based on existing criteria. Novel radiological parameters including the vertical distance descended by the sigmoid colon from rest to maximum straining (RMS) and from the inferior border of the sigmoid colon to the superior border of the rectum at maximum straining (MSR) were measured.

RESULTS

Among 275 patients with sigmoidocele, 251 (91.6%) were female. The mean age was 51.53±12.99 years. We classified 26, 205, and 44 cases as grades I, II, and III, respectively. Patients with more severe sigmoidocele had greater sigmoid colon mobility (RMS: 19.13±8.54 mm, 34.45±14.51 mm, and 48.70±20.05 mm for grades I, II, and III, respectively; p < 0.001) and more pronounced compression of the rectum by the sigmoid colon at maximum straining (MSR: 35.23±8.44 mm, 26.33±13.29 mm, and 15.18±18.00 mm, respectively; p < 0.001). We regrouped the patients based on sigmoid colon alignment. Type L patients had the most severe constipation.

CONCLUSION

Our study presents a novel sigmoidocele classification. The anatomic appearance and location of the herniated sigmoid colon observed using fluoroscopy during defecation may help improve the clinical awareness of ODS caused by sigmoidocele.

Technical feasibility and perioperative outcome of laparoscopic resection rectopexy with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) and intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA)

Purpose

Laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy (LRR) is the most effective treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome but is associated with a higher postoperative morbidity compared to transanal approaches. Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) has been described as a promising technique to lower morbidity in colorectal cancer surgery. In this study, we analyze the technical challenges of adapting this technique to LRR and compare the perioperative results to the conventional laparoscopic technique with specimen extraction via minilaparotomy and extracorporeal anastomosis.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 45 patients who underwent laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy due to obstructive defecation syndrome at our institutions. From September 2020 to July 2021, we treated 17 consecutive patients with NOSE-LRR and compared the results to a historic cohort of 28 consecutive patients treated with conventional laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection rectopexy plus minilaparotomy (LAP-LRR) for specimen extraction between January 2019 and July 2020. Assessed were patient- and disease-specific parameters, operative time, hospital and postoperative complications and subjective patient satisfaction after 6 months of follow-up.

Results

Both groups were comparable in terms of gender distribution, age, and comorbidities. The median operating time was similar and the perioperative morbidity was comparable in both groups. The length of stay in hospital was significantly shorter in the NOSE-LRR group (median 6 vs 8 days).

Conclusion

NOSE-LRR can be implemented safely, performed in a comparable operating time, and is associated with a comparable rate of postoperative complications. The technique offers the a potentially fast postoperative recovery compared to the conventional laparoscopic technique.

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy significantly affects preexisting urinary symptoms in female patients

PURPOSE

It has previously been noted that following rectopexy, some patients report changes in urinary function. So far, not much is known about the extent of such changes. This study assesses the effects of laparoscopic rectopexy on urinary symptoms.

METHODS

Prospective observational study with 100 consecutive female patients indicated for laparoscopic resection rectopexy. Stated urinary symptoms, pre- and postoperative "International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire" (ICIQ), supplemented by a "quality of life " (QoL) visual analogue scale, and residual urine measurements (RUM) were compared and correlated.

RESULTS

Postoperative QoL was significantly improved, irrespective of preexisting urinary symptoms. Twenty-four (24%) patients noticed improved urinary function. This corresponded with 42% of 45 patients who had positive preoperative ICIQ scores indicating preexisting urinary symptoms. Conversely, 14 (14%) patients noticed a postoperative increase of urinary complaints. The stated symptom change was only in part reflected by changes of the ICIQ scoring. Comparing ICIQ, 19 (19%) patients scored "better" postoperatively against 8% scoring worse; 5 of the 8 patients experienced "de novo" symptoms. The improved postoperative ICIQ scoring was highly significant. RUM did not sufficiently correlate to symptoms/ICIQ for any meaningful conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy had predominantly beneficial and to a lesser extent detrimental effects on urinary symptoms. Effects were highly significant; they were mainly noted in patients with preexisting urinary complaints. So far, it is not possible to predict such effects on an individual basis. It appears likely that similar effects may be found for most of the alternative operative procedures for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Without more factual knowledge and awareness about the extent of potential "collateral" effects of pelvic floor repair procedures, expert guidance of patients appears limited.

Anatomo-functional outcomes of the laparoscopic Frykman-Goldberg procedure for rectal prolapse in a tertiary referral centre

Rectal prolapse is a common disorder that represents a burden for patients due to the associated symptoms that may include both incontinence and constipation. Currently, a huge variation in techniques exist. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anatomo-functional results of the laparoscopic Frykman-Goldberg procedure (LFGP) for the treatment of both internal (IRP) and complete rectal prolapse (CRP). Between July 2004 and October 2019, 45 patients with IRP and CRP underwent a LFGP. The Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Syndrome Score (ODSS) and Vaizey Score (VS) were assessed preoperatively, 3 months before the procedure, 12 months after the procedures and at the final follow-up visit. The patients' mean age was 51.4 ± 17.9 (15-93) years, and the mean follow-up was 9.24 ± 4.57 (1.6-16.3) years. The VS, CCCS and ODSS significantly improved (p = 0.008; p < 0.001; p < 0.001) from median preoperative values of 3, 20 and 18 to 2, 6 and 5, respectively. Furthermore, the improvements in scores during follow-up remained constant and significant over time when considering the two groups separately (time effect for ODSS p < 0.001, for VS p = 0.026, for CCCS p < 0.001) and when the patients were divided by age (< 40, 41-60 and > 60; p < 0.001). The overall complication rate was 8.9% (4/45), and no intraoperative complications or anastomotic leakage occurred. Conversion to the open approach was not necessary in any case. The overall success rate was 97.7%, and only one recurrence in the IRP group occurred after 14 months. LRGP can be considered a safe, effective and long-lasting procedure in young patients with IRP or CRP, a history of ODS and a redundant sigmoid colon.

Autologous Fascia Lata for Combined Sacrocolpopexy and Rectopexy

ABSTRACT

We present a case series and video of our technique using autologous fascia lata for combined sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy, with or without resection.

Abdominal ventral rectopexy with colectomy for obstructed defecation syndrome: An alternative option for selected patients

BACKGROUND

Abdominal ventral rectopexy (AVR) with colectomy is controversial in the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Literature data on this technique for ODS are very limited.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of AVR with colectomy for selected patients with ODS.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent AVR with colectomy for ODS were identified prospectively from 2016 to 2017 in our department. Patient demographics, perioperative surgical results, and postoperative follow-up outcomes were collected and analyzed. Long-term follow-up was evaluated with standardized questionnaires. The severity of symptoms was assessed by the objective Wexner Constipation Score (WCS) and ODS Score. The quality of life was assessed by the Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score. Functional outcome was compared pre- and post-operatively for each patient. The primary outcomes were determined by the improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures were operating time, postoperative length of stay, morbidity and mortality, improvement of pelvic floor structure, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Four patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery, and two patients underwent a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. The mean operating time for the robotic approach was 243 min (range 160–300 min), and the mean operating time for the laparoscopic approach was 230 min (range 220-240 min). The mean postoperative length of stay was 8.2 d (range 6-12 d). There was no conversion to open procedure and no postoperative mortality. No urinary retention, wound infection, prolonged ileus, pelvic infection and anastomosis leakage occurred. Six patients were followed up for 36 mo. The WCS, ODS, and Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score improved significantly postoperatively (P < 0.05). The WCS and ODS scores showed the best remission and stabilization at 6 to 12 mo after surgery. There was no recurrence or novel constipation after surgery. None of the patients used laxative medication.

CONCLUSION

Robotic and laparoscopic-assisted ventral rectopexy with colectomy is a safe and effective procedure for selected patients with ODS. However, comprehensive preoperative evaluation and careful patient selection are essential.

Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy Versus Stapled Transanal Rectal Resection for Treatment of Obstructed Defecation in the Elderly: Long-term Results of a Prospective Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Obstructed defecation is a common complaint in coloproctology. Many anal, abdominal, and laparoscopic procedures are adopted to correct the underlying condition.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare long-term functional outcome, recurrence rate, and quality of life between laparoscopic ventral rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection in the treatment of obstructed defecation.

DESIGN

This was a prospective randomized study.

SETTING

This study was performed at academic medical centers.

PATIENTS

Patients were included if they had obstructed defecation attributed to pelvic structural abnormalities that did not to respond to conservative measures. Exclusion criteria included nonrelaxing puborectalis, previous abdominal surgery, other anal pathology, and pudendal neuropathy.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly allocated to either laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (group 1) or stapled transanal rectal resection (group 2).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were improvement of modified obstructed defecation score and recurrences after ≥3 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, continence status using Wexner incontinence score, and quality of life using Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

The study included 112 patients (56 in each arm). ASA score II was reported in 32 patients (18 in group 1 and 14 in group 2; p = 0.12), whereas 3 patients in each group had ASA score III. Minor postoperative complications were seen in 11 patients (20%) of group 1 and 14 patients of group 2 (25%; p = 0.65). During follow-up, 3 patients had fecal urgency after stapled transanal rectal resection but no sexual dysfunction in either procedure. After 6 months, modified obstructed defecation score improvement >50% was reported in 73% versus 82% in groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.36). After a mean follow-up of 41 months, recurrences of symptoms were reported in 7% in group 1 versus 24% in group 2 (p = 0.04). Six months postoperation, perineal descent improved >50% in defecogram in 80% of group 1 versus no improvement in group 2. Quality of life significantly improved in both groups after 6 months; however a significant long-term drop (>36 months) was seen only in group 2.

LIMITATIONS

Possible limitations of this study are the presence of a single operator and the absence of blindness of the technique for both patient and assessor.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients even with comorbidities, both laparoscopic ventral rectopexy and stapled transanal rectal resection are safe and can improve function of the anorectum in patients with obstructed defecation attributed to structural abnormalities. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy has better long-term functional outcome, less complications, and less recurrences compared with stapled transanal rectal resection. Perineal descent only improves after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Stapled transanal rectal resection was shown not to be the first choice in elderly patients with obstructed defecation unless they had a medical contraindication to laparoscopic procedures. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A788.

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.

[Intraoperative pitfalls and complications in defecation disorders and rectal prolapse]

BACKGROUND

No generally accepted gold standard exists for the operative therapy of rectal prolapse in its variety of manifestations. Existing evidence suggests that an individualized choice of procedure provides the best result for each single patient. Knowledge of possible pitfalls and intraoperative management of complications in frequently applied procedures are important prerequisites for reliable treatment of affected patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A consecutive series of 233 patients (June 2011-May 2016) with individualized choice of operative procedure in patients with rectal prolapse and rectocele based on an algorithm for a clinical treatment pathway and stapled hemorrhoidopexy were included. Intraoperative pitfalls and complications and their management (iPCM) were prospectively documented and analyzed.

RESULTS

The iPCM could be classified into three different categories: group I: iPCM was immediately noted and intraoperatively treated with no impact on the further clinical course (n = 20), group II: iPCM was successfully treated conservatively within a short time after the procedure (n = 9) and group III: iPCM required surgical revision (n = 5).

CONCLUSION

Individualized treatment of rectal prolapse and rectocele requires a broad spectrum of methods in specialized coloproctology units. A clinical treatment pathway facilitates the optimal choice of procedure. Overall the complication rates during surgical treatment of transanal rectal prolapse are low; however, available operative procedures hold specific risks and knowledge of these risks helps to avoid them. Once complications occur, measures demonstrated in this study lead to normal clinical courses in the majority of cases.

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.

[Complications after rectal prolapse surgery]

Major complications only rarely occur after rectal prolapse surgery. Generally, the spectrum of possible complications should always be considered depending on the selected surgical procedure. Minor complications in all techniques have been described in up to 36 %. The commonest complication is bleeding with 2-5 %, urinary tract infections and wound infections. Finally, the risk of recurrence must be considered, which shows substantial differences (4-40 %); therefore, no operation technique can be given preference based solely on the risk of recurrence. Therapy decisions are always more individualized and must take the personal environment of the patient as well as the experience of the surgeon into consideration.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and pelvic floor disorders

Pelvic floor disorders are different dysfunctions of gynaecological, urinary or anorectal organs, which can present as incontinence, outlet-obstruction and organ prolapse or as a combination of these symptoms. Pelvic floor disorders affect a substantial amount of people, predominantly women. Transabdominal procedures play a major role in the treatment of these disorders. With the development of new techniques established open procedures are now increasingly performed laparoscopically. Operation techniques consist of various rectopexies with suture, staples or meshes eventually combined with sigmoid resection. The different approaches need to be measured by their operative and functional outcome and their recurrence rates. Although these operations are performed frequently a comparison and evaluation of the different methods is difficult, as most of the used outcome measures in the available studies have not been standardised and data from randomised studies comparing these outcome measures directly are lacking. Therefore evidence based guidelines do not exist. Currently the laparoscopic approach with ventral mesh rectopexy or resection rectopexy is the two most commonly used techniques. Observational and retrospective studies show good functional results, a low rate of complications and a low recurrence rate. As high quality evidence is missing, an individualized approach is recommend for every patient considering age, individual health status and the underlying morphological and functional disorders.

Novel combined approach in the management of non-healing solitary rectal ulcer syndrome - laparoscopic resection rectopexy and transanal endoscopic microsurgery

Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is an uncommon chronic disorder with a wide range of endoscopic findings, clinical presentations and characteristic histopathological features. There is no clear consensus regarding SRUS management, because of its poorly understood pathogenesis and frequent association with various pelvic floor disorders. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) were used for the treatment of non-healing SRUS. The present paper reports a case of non-healing SRUS due to obstructive defecation syndrome based on combined pelvic floor disorders (rectocele, enterocele, internal rectal prolapse and dolichosigma) successfully managed by a novel combined mini-invasive approach which has never been previously reported in the literature (laparoscopic resection rectopexy and TEM). The new minimally invasive concept seems to be safe and feasible – laparoscopic resection rectopexy results in effective correction of the obstructive defecation syndrome, while TEM allows comfortable access for radical resection of a rectal ulcer.

Surgery for obstructed defecation syndrome-is there an ideal technique

Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) is a common disorder with a considerable impact on the quality of life of affected patients. Surgery for ODS remains a challenging topic. There exists a great variety of operative techniques to treat patients with ODS. According to the surgeon’s preference the approach can be transanal, transvaginal, transperineal or transabdominal. All techniques have its advantages and disadvantages. Notably, high evidence based studies are significantly lacking in literature, thus making accurate assessments difficult. Careful patient’s selection is crucial to achieve optimal functional results. It is mandatory to assess not only defecation disorders but also evaluate overall pelvic floor symptoms, such as fecal incontinence and urinary disorders for choosing an appropriate and tailored strategy. Radiological investigation is essential but may not explain complaints of every patient.

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.

Laparoscopy for pelvic floor disorders

Surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders has significantly evolved during the last decade, with increasing understanding of anatomy, pathophysiology and the minimally-invasive 'revolution' of laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic pelvic floor repair requires a thorough knowledge of pelvic floor anatomy and its supportive components before repair of defective anatomy is possible. Several surgical procedures have been introduced and applied to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. Transabdominal procedures include a variety of rectopexies with the use of sutures or prosthesis and with or without resection of redundant sigmoid colon. Unfortunately there is lack of one generally accepted standard treatment technique. This article will focus on recent advances in the management of pelvic floor disorders affecting defecation, with a brief overview of contemporary concepts in pelvic floor anatomy and different laparoscopic treatment options.

[Pelvic floor disorders from the surgeon's viewpoint]

Pelvic floor disorders present very differently with regard to symptoms and manifestation. Both diagnostic and treatment options require specific experience and an interdisciplinary approach. Diagnostic work-up is primarily based on medical history, physical examination and procto-rectoscopy. Furthermore, endosonography and perineal sonography have also gained importance. In almost all cases following these basic examinations conservative therapy options should be considered. As the interdisciplinary concept is very important, for careful diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders it became crucial to find an adequate form of treatment. Every decision for surgical therapy should not only focus on the results of previous examinations but should also consider the individual situation of each patient. In pelvic floor disorders a large variety of symptoms are confronted with a vast number of different and often highly specific procedures. The decisions on who to treat and how to treat are not only based on individual patient requests and desires but also on the experience and preference of the surgeon.