Concurrent genital and rectal prolapse: two pathologies--one joint operation

Resection rectopexy as part of the multidisciplinary approach in the management of complex pelvic floor disorders

Objectives

Pelvic floor disorders are frequently caused by an organ prolapse involving multiple pelvic floor compartments. In such cases, a multidisciplinary strategy for diagnostic work-up and therapy is required.

Methods

All patients who underwent transabdominal rectopexy/resection rectopexy alone or in combination with simultaneous gynecological pelvic floor reconstruction at our institution between 01/2006 and 12/2021 were included in this retrospective study. The study aimed to evaluate the functional outcome and postoperative complications.

Results

Two hundred and eighty seven patients were assigned to one of the following groups: PG1 - patient group one: after resection rectopexy (n=141); PG2 - after ventral rectopexy (n=8); PG3 - after combined resection rectopexy and sacro (cervico)colpopexy (n=62); PG4 - after combined resection rectopexy and trans-vaginal pelvic floor repair (n=76). The duration of follow-up was 14 months for PG1 (median, IQR 37 months), 11 months for PG2 (mean, SD 9 months), 7 months for PG 3 (median, IQR 33 months), and 12 months for PG 4 (median, IQR 51 Months). The surgical procedure resulted in improvement of symptoms related to obstructed defecation in 56.4 % (22/39) of the patients in PG1, 25 % in PG2 (1/4), 62.5 % (20/32) in PG3, and 71.8 % (28/39) in PG4. "De novo" constipation was reported by 2.4 % (2/141) of patients from PG1. Improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms was reported by 69 % (40/58) of patients in PG1, 100 % in PG2 (2/2), 93.1 % (27/29) in PG3, and 87.2 % (34/39) in PG4. The recurrence rate for external rectal prolapse was 7.1 % in PG1, 50 % in PG2 (1/2), 2.7 % in PG3, and 6.3 % in PG4. A significant difference in terms of severe morbidity (grade ≥ IIIb) and mortality could not be determined between the non-interdisciplinary (PG1 with PG2) and interdisciplinary surgery (PG3 with PG4) (p=0.88, p=0.499).

Conclusions

Based on our results, we can assume that combined surgery is as feasible as rectal surgery alone. In our study, combined interventions were effective and not associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications.

Recurrence of Rectal Prolapse After Surgical Repair in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is prevalent among women with rectal prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether clinically significant pelvic organ prolapse impacts rectal prolapse recurrence after surgical repair.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort.

SETTING

This study was performed at a single managed-care institution.

PATIENTS

Consecutive women undergoing rectal prolapse repair between 2008 and 2016 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

There were no interventions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Full-thickness rectal prolapse recurrence was compared between 4 groups: abdominal repair without pelvic organ prolapse (AR-POP); abdominal repair with pelvic organ prolapse (AR+POP); perineal repair without pelvic organ prolapse PR-POP; and perineal repair with pelvic organ prolapse (PR+POP). Recurrence-free period and hazard of recurrence were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. To identify potential confounding risk factors for rectal prolapse recurrence, the characteristics of subjects with/without recurrence were compared with univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, pelvic organ prolapse was present in 33% of 112 women and was more prevalent among subjects with rectal prolapse recurrence (52.4% vs 28.6%, p = 0.04). Median follow-up was 42.5 months; rectal prolapse recurrence occurred in 18.8% at a median of 9 months. The rate of recurrence and the recurrence-free period differed significantly between groups: AR-POP 3.8%, 95.7 months; AR+POP 13.0%, 86.9 months; PR-POP 34.8%, 42.1 months; PR+POP 57.1%, 23.7 months (p < 0.001). Compared with AR-POP the HR (95% CI) of rectal prolapse recurrence was 3.1 (0.5-18.5) for AR+POP; 14.7 (3.0-72.9) for PR-POP and 31.1 (6.2-154.5) for PR+POP. Compared with AR+POP, PR+POP had a shorter recurrence-free period (p < 0.001) and a higher hazard of recurrence (HR, 10.2; 95% CI, 2.1-49.3).

LIMITATIONS

The retrospective design was a limitation of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic organ prolapse was associated with a higher rectal prolapse recurrence rate and earlier recurrence in women undergoing perineal, but not abdominal, repairs. Multidisciplinary evaluation can facilitate individualized management of women with rectal prolapse. Abdominal repair should be considered in women with concomitant rectal and pelvic organ prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A513.

Safety of combined abdominal sacral colpopexy and sigmoid resection with suture rectopexy: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine if abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC) using mesh can be safely combined with sigmoid resection and anastomosis.

METHODS

This is a single institution, retrospective chart review of patients who underwent combined ASC and suture rectopexy with sigmoid resection between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2011. Charts were screened for outcome data and complications related to the placement of synthetic mesh at the time of bowel resection to include readmission and reoperation rates, infection, bowel obstruction, fistula, and mesh erosion. Outcome data for patients receiving combined procedures were compared to 2 separate cohorts of patients as follows: a group that underwent only ASC with polypropylene mesh and a group that underwent only sigmoid resection plus or minus suture rectopexy. The DINDO surgical classification system was used for each cohort to further analyze complications.

RESULTS

There were 133 patients in the ASC only group (ASC only), 34 in the combined ASC and sigmoid resection group (Combined), and 27 in the sigmoidectomy plus rectopexy group (Colorectal only). The Colorectal only cohort had a higher rate of postoperative ileus; ASC only 3.8%, Combined 5.9%, Colorectal 22.2% (P = 0.004). There were otherwise no differences in intraoperative and postoperative complications or in the DINDO classification scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal sacral colpopexy with placement of synthetic mesh at the time of sigmoid resection and anastomosis does not seem to increase the rate of intraoperative or postoperative complications.

Tailored surgery for internal and external rectal prolapse: functional results of 268 patients operated upon by a single surgeon over a 21-year period*

OBJECTIVE

Many procedures are used to treat internal (IRP) and external rectal prolapse (ERP). We report the outcome of surgery tailored in accordance with an evolving Unit algorithm over a 21-year period.

METHOD

Two hundred and sixty-eight patients (151 IRP and 117 ERP) are reported. Perineal procedures (Delorme's mucosectomy, Altemeier's perineal rectosigmoidectomy) were used in frail elderly patients with ERP with abdominal sacrorectopexy or the Frykman-Goldberg procedure in fit patients. In IRP, prolapsectomy was most common with anterior hemi-Delorme's procedures for rectocele and levatorplasty for coincident faecal incontinence. Clinical and functional outcome was assessed over a median of 61 months (range 4-184 months).

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 0.4%. For ERP, a perineal procedure was carried out in 75 (61.4%) cases with a 7.2% complication rate, postoperative incontinence in 20 (26.7%), constipation in four (5.3%) and recurrence in 12 (16%). For 42 abdominal procedures, the complication rate was 5% with incontinence in 7.1%, constipation in eight (19%) and recurrence in five (11.9%). A perineal operation was used in 89.4% of patients with IRP with incontinence in 10.6%, persistent constipation in 48 (52.7%) and recurrence in 25 (27.5%). The overall incontinence rate was 11% following abdominal and 24% following perineal procedures (P < 0.05). Recurrence of ERP was significantly higher following a perineal operation (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Tailored surgery for ERP achieves satisfactory results in terms of recurrence and functional outcome. For patients with IRP, perineal procedures are associated with a high incidence of recurrence and residual evacuatory difficulty.

Prospective clinical and functional results of combined rectal and urogynecologic surgery in complex pelvic floor disorders

BACKGROUND

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the results of combined rectal and urogynecologic surgery in women with associated obstructed defecation, urinary incontinence, or genital prolapse.

METHODS

One hundred forty-two selected patients with obstructed defecation in isolation or associated with urinary incontinence, enterocele, or genital prolapse were consecutively operated on by stapled transanal rectal resection alone or associated with transobturator tape, vaginal repair of the enterocele, or vaginal hysterectomy, respectively, and followed up by clinical controls and defecography.

RESULTS

At 2 years, all symptom, quality-of-life, and defecographic parameters had significantly improved in all groups (P < .001). The association with hysterectomy showed higher risk for severe complications, longer operative time, hospital stay, and time of inability (P < .001). Recurrence of urinary incontinence was observed in 3 of 24 patients, while 2 of 21 showed residual vaginal prolapse.

CONCLUSION

The combination of rectal and urogynecologic surgery is effective, with higher morbidity in the association with vaginal hysterectomy. Randomized trials comparing surgery in 1 and more stages and longer follow-up are necessary for a definitive conclusion.

Rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Rectal prolapse, or procidentia, is defined as a protrusion of the rectum beyond the anus. It commonly occurs at the extremes of age. Rectal prolapse frequently coexists with other pelvic floor disorders, and patients have symptoms associated with combined rectal and genital prolapse. Few patients, a lack of randomized trials and difficulties in the interpretation of studies of anorectal physiology have made the understanding of this disorder difficult.

METHODS OF TREATMENT

Surgical management is aimed at restoring physiology by correcting the prolapse and improving continence and constipation, whereas in patients with concurrent genital and rectal prolapse, an interdisciplinary surgical approach is required. Operation should be reserved for those patients in whom medical treatment has failed, and it may be expected to relieve symptoms. Numerous surgical procedures have been suggested to treat rectal prolapse. They are generally classified as abdominal or perineal according to the route of access. However, the controversy as to which operation is appropriate cannot be answered definitively, as the extent of a standardized diagnostic assessment and the types of surgical procedures have not been identified in published series.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This review encompasses rectal prolapse, including aetiology, symptoms and treatment. The English-language literature about rectal prolapse was identified using Medline, and additional cited works not detected in the initial search were obtained. Articles reporting on prospective and retrospective comparisons and case reports were included.

Surgical management of combined rectal and genital prolapse in young patients: transabdominal approach

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the anatomical and functional outcomes of the simultaneous treatment of combined rectal and genital prolapse in young patients.

METHODS

Between March 2001 and June 2002, eight female patients with symptomatic rectal and genital prolapse were enrolled in this study. The median age at the time of presentation was 44 years (range 34-53). All patients underwent simultaneous transabdominal treatment of their combined prolapse. Genital prolapse was treated by colpohysteropexy. Rectal prolapse was treated by mesh rectopexy or sutured rectopexy associated with sigmoid resection. The end evaluation to assess long-term results was performed after a median duration of follow-up of 17 months (range 10-24). Patients were asked about current problems with constipation, use of laxatives, incontinence and recurrence.

RESULTS

The postoperative course was uneventful in 7 out of 8 cases. None of the patients had recurrence. Three patients out of 6 remained constipated postoperatively. One patient had a new onset of constipation postoperatively. None of the patients became faecally incontinent. Seven patients (87%) stated that they had improved overall after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Combined rectal and genital prolapse in young women can be safely treated simultaneously using an abdominal approach. The genital prolapse should be treated by colpohysteropexy. The rectal prolapse should be treated by mesh rectopexy in patients who are not constipated, and by sutured rectopexy plus sigmoid resection in patients who are constipated preoperatively.

Surgical intervention for adult patients with rectal prolapse

This review describes the pathogenesis, diagnosis, preoperative testing, and surgical decision making involved in the management of full-thickness rectal protrusion in adults. Historic and current procedures are described in detail. No one procedure is favored over others, and selection depends on the individual characteristics of the patient.

Rectal prolapse in women with other defects of pelvic floor support

OBJECTIVES

We describe a series of patients with rectal prolapse who had other pelvic floor defects.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients with rectal prolapse that we examined between 1990 and 2000 were reviewed.

RESULTS

During this time frame 55 patients with rectal prolapse were seen by one of us. Fifty-two of these patients had other defects of pelvic floor support and are the subject of this report. The diagnosis was established in all patients with video defecography. Thirty-nine of the patients had internal (occult) prolapse that simulated either a rectocele or an enterocele. The mean number of surgical procedures for pelvic floor support before the diagnosis of rectal prolapse was 1.5. Thirty-one patients underwent a sigmoid resection with rectopexy, 12 underwent a rectopexy alone, 3 underwent a Ripstein procedure, 2 elderly patients had physical therapy alone, and the other 4 patients had surgical correction of the rectal prolapse before being referred for repair of vaginal vault prolapse. Other procedures performed simultaneously included sacral colpopexy, sacrospinous suspension, rectopubic urethropexy, and abdominal fixation of the vagina to the uterosacral ligaments.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal prolapse frequently coexists with other pelvic floor defects. Internal rectal prolapse may simulate a rectocele or enterocele and requires defecography to establish the diagnosis. Rectopexy (with or without sigmoid resection) is a satisfactory technique for correction and may be combined with other reconstructive procedures on the pelvic floor.