Novel approach to rectal foreign body extraction

Rectal Foreign Bodies: Surgical Management and the Impact of Psychiatric Illness

Background

Entrapped rectal foreign bodies can be a challenge to manage and are being encountered by acute surgical teams with increasing frequency. The aims of our study were to (a) ascertain the population demographics of patients presenting with this problem in our local area of East Kent, (b) see if an association could be drawn between this presentation and proposed risk factors such as a psychiatric illness or socioeconomic deprivation, and (c) to review how foreign bodies are being removed in the East Kent Hospital University Foundation NHS Trust, United Kingdom and to highlight best practice with regards to this in line with the latest guidelines.

Methodology

Between 2017 and 2021, 32 cases of entrapped rectal foreign bodies were diagnosed and managed at our NHS Trust. Retrospective data taken from the theatre directory and electronic patient records were used to audit patient demographics, co-morbidities, the type of foreign body, and the extraction technique.

Results

The majority of patients (90%) were male (n = 29). The patients’ age ranged from 15 to 95 years, with a median age of 48 years. In total, 12 (37.5%) patients had a medical history of a psychiatric illness. The most common foreign bodies removed were sex toys or vibrators (n = 8) and roll-on deodorant bottles (n = 7). Kent Area B (n = 10) and Kent Area A (n = 9) were the areas with the highest number of cases. Twenty-two (68.8%) patients underwent examination under a general anaesthetic for removal, seven (21.8%) patients had the object manually removed without sedation, and three (9.4%) required a laparotomy with or without bowel resection.

Conclusions

Cases of an entrapped rectal foreign body in this local region typically involved male patients between 40 and 50 years old. A high proportion of this group had a history of a psychiatric illness supporting an association between this presentation and mental health. We have proposed some explanations for this association including the anal canal nervous system interplay with the “brain-gut axis.” Lower socioeconomic status and unemployment may also be risk factors for this surgical problem. A trans-anal approach for management is successful in the majority of cases; however, almost 10% of patients required emergency surgical management. We have highlighted best practice guidelines for the investigation and management of the entrapped rectal foreign body as part of our discussion.

Rectal Foreign Body Removal in the Emergency Department: A Case Report

Introduction

Rectal foreign bodies (RFB) pose a challenge to emergency physicians. Patients are not often forthcoming, which can lead to delays to intervention. Thus, RFBs require a heightened clinical suspicion. In the emergency department (ED), extraction may require creative methods to prevent need for surgical intervention.

Case Report

The authors present a case of a successful extraction of a RFB in the ED and review of the literature.

Conclusion

Retained RFBs are an unusually problematic reason for an ED visit. Thus, it is important for emergency physicians to be comfortable managing such cases appropriately.

Approach to rectal foreign body: an unusual presentation

Foreign bodies in the rectum are commonly confronted worldwide in the surgical emergency. Such a situation arises either accidentally or for autoerotic purposes. A wide variety of foreign objects have been reported in the literature and this usual object would add to the reports for its unusual location. We report a case of a 26-year-old young man with accidental insertion of hand shower in the rectum and no signs of any active bleed or peritonism. Extraction was done successfully in the operating room under general anaesthesia, with an uneventful postprocedure period and the patient was discharged after 48 hours of observation. Rectal foreign bodies can be of wide variety and can lead to life-threatening conditions. An orderly approach is required for diagnosis, management and evaluation in the postprocedure period.

Surgical management of rectal foreign bodies: a 10-year single-center experience

Background

Patients with a rectal foreign body (RFB) are still a rare entity in general surgery departments but with an increasing incidence over the last years. This case is sometimes difficult to treat, and due to a lack of standardized treatment options, the aim of the study was to present our clinical experiences with the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to RFBs and a review of the currently available literature.

Materials and methods

Data were collected retrospectively from the patient’s records of 20 patients who were treated due to an RFB between 2006 and 2016. Patient’s demographics, circumstances of insertion, inserted objects, clinical presentation, laboratory and imaging results, as well as surgical treatment and duration of hospital stay were analyzed. Additionally, a review of the literature was performed with the search items “rectal foreign body” and “surgical therapy”. Because many publications were just case reports, we did not perform a meta-analysis or a systematic review.

Results

Twenty-two cases in 20 patients (80% male) presented to the emergency room. The mean age was 38.5±13.7 years. In 68.2% of the cases, the cause of RFB was due to sexual preferences. The following objects were inserted: six dildos, three vibrators, two bottles, one glass, one deodorant, one apple, one fever thermometer, multiple glass fragments and razor blades in one patient and six unknown objects. For 18 RFBs, manual peranal removal without anesthesia was possible in the emergency room, but two patients required intravenous analgesia. Two patients were transferred to the operating room and the foreign body was removed via the anus under general anesthesia. Open surgery with a laparotomy was necessary for two complicated cases. One patient was in need of surgery due to a vacuum generated by the RFB, whereas the second patient suffered from a sigmoid perforation. In all cases, there was no morbidity or mortality.

Conclusion

In most cases, the removal of an RFB can be performed peranally in the emergency room without further complications, therefore representing the therapy of choice for RFB. Only in cases with perforation, acute abdomen, or failed peranal approaches, surgery is indicated to remove the foreign body.

A Management Algorithm for Retained Rectal Foreign Bodies

Few authors have proposed therapeutic protocols to manage retained rectal foreign bodies (RFBs). All patients with retained RFBs in hospitals across Trinidad and Tobago over 5 years were identified. Hospital records were retrieved and manually reviewed to extract the following data: demographics, history, foreign body retrieved, clinical signs at presentation, management strategy, duration of hospitalization, and morbidity and mortality. There were 10 patients with RFBs over the study period. The annual incidence of this phenomenon was 0.15 per 100,000 population. All patients were men at a mean age of 50.6 years (range: 27-83; SD = 15.3) who presented after a voluntary delay of 1.4 days (range: 0.5-2.5; SD = 0.7). Only one patient gave an accurate history on presentation, but all eventually admitted to self-insertion for sexual gratification. At presentation, one patient had a spontaneous rectal perforation (10%). The remaining nine patients had attempts at bedside transanal extraction, which was unsuccessful in 89% (8/9) of cases. The RFB was pushed beyond the grasp of forceps, making removal under anesthesia unsuccessful in 62.5% (5/8) cases. These patients required more invasive extraction methods including transanal minimally invasive surgery (1), laparoscopic-assisted advancement with transanal retrieval (1), and open surgery with transmural extraction and anastomoses (3). A management algorithm is proposed for the management of RFBs. Important points in this algorithm are the importance of clinician-patient rapport, early surgical referral, avoidance of bedside extraction in the emergency room, early examination under anesthesia, and the inclusion of emerging therapies such as transanal minimally invasive surgery.

Successful Transanal Removal of a Rectal Foreign Body by Abdominal Compression under Endoscopic and X-Ray Fluoroscopic Observation: A Case Report

We occasionally encounter patients with various types of rectal foreign bodies. When too large to grasp, transanal removal can be difficult. Here, we report a case of successful manual transanal removal of an 18 × 4 × 4 cm silicon rod without complications. A 50-year-old male came to the emergency department of our hospital 12 h after transanal insertion of a whole silicon rod. An abdominal examination showed no evidence of peritonitis, while X-ray and computed tomography findings revealed a large foreign body in the rectum, without any sign of perforation. Initially, we attempted removal using an endoscopy procedure with conventional endoscopic instruments, including a snare and grasp forceps, though we failed because of the large size. Next, we manually compressed the foreign body from the abdominal wall under endoscopic and X-ray fluoroscopic observation, and successfully removed it in a transanal manner without complications. Endoscopic and X-ray fluoroscopic assistance were helpful to guide the direction and angle of abdominal compression in this case.

[Treatment of rectal foreign bodies]

AIM

to present the results of treatment of rectal foreign bodies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

15-year outcomes of 112 patients with rectal foreign bodies were analyzed.

RESULTS

Outpatient and hospital care were applied in 52 (46%) and 60 (54%) of cases respectively. Transanal removal was made in 97 (87%) patients including 28 (25%) cases of general anaesthesia. 14 (13%) patients underwent surgery. Colostomy was performed in 7 (6%) cases. We presented cases of foreign bodies removal through laparotomy, colotomy and SILS-assisted transanal approach.

DISCUSSION

From clinical point of view foreign bodies should be first of all classified by their dimensions. Anamnesis and physical examination are very important. Abdominal X-ray survey is obligatory. Transanal removal under general anaesthesia is advisable if perforation is absent. If such procedure is impossible laparotomy is indicated.

CONCLUSION

Algorithm of survey and treatment is presented.

Low rectal cancer: Sphincter preserving techniques-selection of patients, techniques and outcomes

Low rectal cancer is traditionally treated by abdominoperineal resection. In recent years, several new techniques for the treatment of very low rectal cancer patients aiming to preserve the gastrointestinal continuity and to improve both the oncological as well as the functional outcomes, have been emerged. Literature suggest that when the intersphincteric resection is applied in T1-3 tumors located within 30-35 mm from the anal verge, is technically feasible, safe, with equal oncological outcomes compared to conventional surgery and acceptable quality of life. The Anterior Perineal PlanE for Ultra-low Anterior Resection technique, is not disrupting the sphincters, but carries a high complication rate, while the reports on the oncological and functional outcomes are limited. Transanal Endoscopic MicroSurgery (TEM) and TransAnal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) should represent the treatment of choice for T1 rectal tumors, with specific criteria according to the NCCN guidelines and favorable pathologic features. Alternatively to the standard conventional surgery, neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy followed by TEM or TAMIS seems promising for tumors of a local stage T1sm2-3 or T2. Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision should be performed only when a board approved protocol is available by colorectal surgeons with extensive experience in minimally invasive and transanal endoscopic surgery.

A new and simple extraction technique for rectal foreign bodies: removing by cutting into small pieces

The purposes of insertion and types of foreign bodies in rectum show great variation. Rectal foreign bodies need to be removed without giving damage to intestinal wall and this should be done in the easiest possible way. We have reported a new and a simple technique. It is easy to apply and safe. A patient was admitted to our clinic with a rectal foreign body (radish) which was successfully removed by cutting it into small pieces. We conclude that different kinds of rectal foreign bodies, especially fruit and vegetables, can be removed by this technique.

A systematic review of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) from 2010 to 2013

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) was introduced as an alternative to transanal endoscopic microsurgery in 2010. Over the past 4 years, considerable international experience has been gained with this approach. Most published reports focus on TAMIS for local excision of rectal neoplasia, but there are other important applications such as transanal mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. This comprehensive review details the progress with TAMIS since its inception. Robotic transanal surgery is a natural evolution of TAMIS still in its early infancy, which is also reviewed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge was performed. Since the inception of TAMIS in 2009, 33 retrospective studies and case reports, and 3 abstracts have been published on TAMIS for local excision of rectal neoplasms, which represents a combined n = 390 TAMIS procedures performed worldwide using eight different types of TAMIS platforms. A total of 152 lesions were excised for benign disease including adenomas and high-grade dysplasias (39 %), 209 for malignancy for carcinomas in situ and adenocarcinomas (53.5 %). Twenty-nine (7.5 %) of TAMIS resections were for other pathology, of which the majority (23/29) were neuroendocrine lesions. The remaining resections were for mucocele, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, melanoma, and fibrosis. Robotic-TAMIS has also been reported, however, data are extremely limited as there are only 7 case reports (combined n = 11) in the published literature. Success with Robotic-TAMIS has been demonstrated with various patient positions and by use of a special glove port. Transanal total mesorectal excision using the TAMIS platform has also been demonstrated is several small series, and the feasibility of performing pure transanal total mesorectal excision has also been reported. Combined, n = 78 cases of transanal total mesorectal excision have been performed using TAMIS. The advantages of TAMIS-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision are discussed.

A systematic review of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) from 2010 to 2013

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) was introduced as an alternative to transanal endoscopic microsurgery in 2010. Over the past 4 years, considerable international experience has been gained with this approach. Most published reports focus on TAMIS for local excision of rectal neoplasia, but there are other important applications such as transanal mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. This comprehensive review details the progress with TAMIS since its inception. Robotic transanal surgery is a natural evolution of TAMIS still in its early infancy, which is also reviewed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge was performed. Since the inception of TAMIS in 2009, 33 retrospective studies and case reports, and 3 abstracts have been published on TAMIS for local excision of rectal neoplasms, which represents a combined n = 390 TAMIS procedures performed worldwide using eight different types of TAMIS platforms. A total of 152 lesions were excised for benign disease including adenomas and high-grade dysplasias (39 %), 209 for malignancy for carcinomas in situ and adenocarcinomas (53.5 %). Twenty-nine (7.5 %) of TAMIS resections were for other pathology, of which the majority (23/29) were neuroendocrine lesions. The remaining resections were for mucocele, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, melanoma, and fibrosis. Robotic-TAMIS has also been reported, however, data are extremely limited as there are only 7 case reports (combined n = 11) in the published literature. Success with Robotic-TAMIS has been demonstrated with various patient positions and by use of a special glove port. Transanal total mesorectal excision using the TAMIS platform has also been demonstrated is several small series, and the feasibility of performing pure transanal total mesorectal excision has also been reported. Combined, n = 78 cases of transanal total mesorectal excision have been performed using TAMIS. The advantages of TAMIS-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision are discussed.