Methods of Evaluation of Anorectal Causes of Obstructed Defecation

Does parity impact obstructed defecation in women with normal anorectal anatomy?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Obstructed defecation (OD) is often associated with trauma to pelvic connective tissue and nerves sustained during pregnancy and childbirth. Although there are multiple potential etiologies of defecatory dysfunction, the pathophysiology of this symptom complex is not well understood. The purpose of this study is to determine the role of parity in the development of obstructed defecatory symptoms in women with normal anorectal anatomy in a search for evidence of a presumptive neuropathic effect of pregnancy and childbirth.

METHODS

This study retrospectively evaluated the records of 754 women presenting at a tertiary urogynecology unit for pelvic floor dysfunction with no anatomical abnormalities of the anorectum on imaging. They were stratified according to parity. The authors determined the prevalence of obstructed defecation symptoms in these groups. Chi-squared test was performed for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Median age was 51 (range 16-88) years, and median vaginal parity was 2 (0-8); 399 (53%) women reported symptoms of OD. When anatomical abnormalities of the anorectum were excluded, parity did not seem to have a major effect on the prevalence of symptoms of OD.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, parity is unlikely to be a cause of OD in women with normal anorectal anatomy.

Tailoring surgery for obstructed defecation syndrome to the 'iceberg diagram': Long-term results

BACKGROUND

Patients with obstructed defecation syndrome may present with a wide spectrum of disorders. The iceberg diagram, which focuses on the underlying occult diseases, has been proposed for an accurate diagnosis. The iceberg diagram deals with lesions, which, if neglected, may worsen the prognosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of using the iceberg diagram on the clinical results.

METHODS

Patients operated for obstructed defecation syndrome based on the iceberg diagram between 2008 and 2018 were evaluated pre- and postsurgery. All patients underwent psychosomatic assessment, abdominal and perineal examination, proctoscopy, vaginoscopy, transanal ultrasound, and defecography. Postoperative complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 80 operated patients, 73 were females; median age was 47 (range 26-78) years. All had a rectal internal mucosal prolapse and 85% had a rectocele. The most frequent occult diseases were functional (mental distress [46%]) or organic (colpo-cysto-enterocele [44%]). Surgery was tailored according to the iceberg diagram with prolapsectomy and rectocele repair the most commonly used among 8 different procedures. A total of 14% of patients had a postoperative complication. Median follow-up was 72 months. Obstructed defecation syndrome score significantly decreased from 10.5 ± 4.8 (mean + standard deviation) to 3.4 ± 3.6 (P < .01) and 68% of patients reported to be either improved or cured.

CONCLUSION

The use of the iceberg diagram in obstructed defecation syndrome patients assists in identifying latent "submerged lesions' that may negatively impact the functional outcome of surgery. A clinical approach to patients with obstructed defecation syndrome tailored according to the iceberg diagram allows the identification of occult lesions and to achieve good long-term results.

Dynamic fluoroscopic defecography: updates on rationale, technique, and interpretation from the Society of Abdominal Radiology Pelvic Floor Disease Focus Panel

Whether used as the primary diagnostic test or reserved as a problem-solving examination, fluoroscopic defecography (FD) remains an important tool in the workup and treatment of defecatory disorders. FD is a well-established, simple, and rapid examination that most closely resembles the actual process and position that a patient uses to enable defecation and provides both qualitative and quantitative information on the defecatory process. FD is indicated when re-creating the act of defecation is necessary, especially in patients with symptoms of obstructed defecation and where symptoms do not correlate with prior examinations such as MRI. Also, FD may help the patient understand the severity of their condition, better informing them of the structural and functional pathology, and aid in discussions with the surgeon regarding plans for treating their complex pelvic floor and defecatory problems. This review provides an up-to-date, comprehensive summary of FD and describes the indications for, techniques of, and common pathology encountered.

Improvement in Outlet Obstructive Constipation Symptoms After Vaginal Stent Treatment for Rectocele

Objective. The objective is to determine the possible improvement in outlet obstructive constipation symptoms after vaginal stent treatment for rectocele. Methods. Female patients with rectocele (n = 156) accompanied with outlet obstructive constipation were selected in this study. Longo's obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) questionnaire, rectoanal pressures, and rectal balloon expulsion (BET) were evaluated at baseline, 1 month follow-up, and 6 months follow-up. Moreover, the side effects and the potential reasons for giving up treatment were also detected. Results. Vaginal stent significantly decreased the straining intensity, shortened the straining extensity time, decreased the use of laxatives, and alleviated the symptoms of incomplete evacuation (P < .05). The vaginal stent also increased the rectal pressure and shortened the balloon expulsion time (P < .05). Conclusions. As an effective, feasible, and safe procedure, the vaginal stent can be recommended as a treatment of choice for rectocele combined with outlet obstructive constipation.

Obstructed defecation syndrome: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge

Obstructed defecation syndrome produces constipation with anal blockage and a feeling of incomplete evacuation, due to either anatomic and functional causes. This is a complex and multifactorial entity due to diverse etiological factors that may coexist in many patients. Therefore, a diagnostic approach requires structural and functional assessment. The concordance between findings of diagnostic tests is suboptimal, thus an individualized analysis is mandatory in each patient. Therapeutic strategies require the best understanding of anatomic and functional aspects. Consequently, this entity is a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge.

Evaluation of 153 Asymptomatic Subjects Using the Anopress Portable Anal Manometry Device

Background/Aims

The Anopress device is a new portable manometry system. The aim of this study is to formulate normative data using this new device by recording the anorectal function of asymptomatic subjects. Patient comfort was also assessed.

Methods

Anorectal function was assessed in asymptomatic volunteers using the Anopress. All volunteers were examined in a standardized way in accordance with the study protocol. Normative values for the Anopress were obtained from the recorded data and patient comfort was assessed using a visual analogue scale.

Results

We recruited 153 healthy volunteers. Eighty were female (23 parous; median age 39.5 [interquartile range {IQR}, 28.75–53.00]) and 73 were male (median age 40.5 [IQR, 29.00–52.25]). For the female cohort, the following normal range (2.5–97.5 percentile) values were recorded across the whole anal canal: resting pressure 40.0–103.0 mmHg; squeeze increment 35.0–140.6 mmHg; endurance 1.3–9.0 seconds; involuntary squeeze 41.1–120.8 mmHg; and strain pressure 22.1–77.9 mmHg. Similarly, the following male normal range (2.5–97.5 percentile) values were recorded across the whole anal canal: resting pressure 38.3–99.6 mmHg; squeeze increment 42.5–154.8 mmHg; involuntary squeeze 40.0–123.6 mmHg; endurance 2.0–10.0 seconds; and strain pressure 11.0–72.1 mmHg. The median visual analogue scale scores for discomfort during the measurement was 0.0 (IQR, 0.00–0.00).

Conclusions

Normative values for the Anopress device have been calculated by this study. The Anopress appears to be a safe and well tolerated way of measuring pressures from the entire anal canal. Further comparisons with other standard and commonly used manometry tests are, however, required to verify its reliability.