Frequency of anal incontinence and results of pelvic viscerography in 291 women with pelvic organ prolapse

Approach to concomitant rectal and uterine prolapse: case report

The classic description of rectal prolapse is a protrusion of the rectum beyond the anus. Peaks of occurrences are noted in the fourth and seventh decades of life, and most patients (80-90%) are women. The condition is often concurrent with pelvic floor descent and prolapse of other pelvic floor organs, such as the uterus or the bladder. In this study, two cases having contraindication to general anesthesia with rectal and uterine prolapse are presented. These cases were operated on under local anesthesia with support of sedation by Leforte and Delorme's operation at the same time. In conclusion; pelvic floor disorders should be considered as a whole, and surgical correction of rectal prolapse and uterine prolapse may be done at the same time under local anesthesia with the support of sedation. Performance of these operations by experienced and trained pelvic reconstructive surgeons may be advocated.

Symptoms of anal incontinence and difficult defecation among women with prolapse and a matched control cohort

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to quantify the risk for anal incontinence and difficult defecation among women with prolapse by comparing them with women without prolapse of similar age, body mass index, race, and hysterectomy status, and to determine whether there are characteristics or findings in women with prolapse that are associated with greater symptom severity.

STUDY DESIGN

Women with primary pelvic organ prolapse (n = 151) were compared with women without prolapse (n = 135). All subjects underwent pelvic examination and completed symptom questionnaires regarding how frequently anal incontinence and difficult defecation were experienced. Incontinence of flatus was considered to be present if it occurred on "most" or "every" day; difficult defecation was considered to be present if it was experienced with "most" or "every" bowel movement. Symptoms that occurred "on occasion" or "never" were considered to be absent.

RESULTS

Incontinence of flatus was reported by 23.1% of cases vs 8.3% of control subjects (P = .006). Incontinence of liquid or solid stool was present in 4.7% and 3.5%, respectively, and was not reported by control subjects (P < .001 and .009, respectively). Difficult defecation, which was characterized by pushing on the vaginal walls to complete defecation, was present in 19.7% vs 4.4% of control subjects (P = .001). Cases that reported symptoms were compared with those that did not report symptoms. Among those reporting difficult defecation, the length of the perineal body length was greater when straining (4.0 vs 3.4 cm; P = .020). Among those reporting incontinence of flatus, mean parity was higher (3.3 vs 2.5; P = .012), and a positive standing cough stress test was more likely (39.3% vs 18.5%; P = .025). Symptoms of anal incontinence and/or difficult defecation were present in 35.3% of subjects (52/147).

CONCLUSION

Women with prolapse are more likely than control subjects to have symptoms of anal incontinence or difficult defecation; approximately one-third of these women will have symptoms.

De novo rectal prolapse after obliterative and reconstructive vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of de novo rectal prolapse after obliterative vaginal surgery with the incidence that was seen after reconstructive vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse.

STUDY DESIGN

A chart review was performed on subjects who underwent vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse from Jan. 1, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2004, at the Cleveland Clinic. Diagnosis of postoperative rectal prolapse was identified with ICD-9 code 569.1.

RESULTS

Nine hundred sixteen women underwent vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse. Ninety-two percent of the women (n = 840) underwent reconstructive surgery, and 8% of the women (n = 76) underwent obliterative surgery. The incidence of postoperative full-thickness rectal prolapse in women who were > or = 65 years old who underwent obliterative surgery was 3 of 74 (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.4-11), with an estimated odds ratio of 22 (95% CI, 2.3-196; P < .002) compared with women who were > or = 65 years old who underwent reconstructive surgery.

CONCLUSION

Obliterative surgery is associated with a substantially greater risk of de novo rectal prolapse than reconstructive vaginal surgery for urogenital prolapse.