Clinical efficacy of integral theory–guided laparoscopic integral pelvic floor/ligament repair in the treatment of internal rectal prolapse in females

BACKGROUND

Internal rectal prolapse (IRP) is one of the most common causes of obstructive constipation. The incidence of IRP in women is approximately three times that in men. IRP is mainly treated by surgery, which can be divided into two categories: Abdominal procedures and perineal procedures. This study offers a better procedure for the treatment of IRP.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic integral pelvic floor/ligament repair (IPFLR) combined with a procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) and the laparoscopic IPFLR alone in the treatment of IRP in women.

METHODS

This study collected the clinical data of 130 female patients with IRP who underwent surgery from January 2012 to October 2014. The patients were divided into groups A and B. Group A had 63 patients who underwent laparoscopic IPFLR alone, and group B had 67 patients who underwent the laparoscopic IPFLR combined with PPH. The degree of internal rectal prolapse (DIRP), Wexner constipation scale (WCS) score, Wexner incontinence scale (WIS) score, and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) score were compared between groups and within groups before surgery and 6 mo and 2 years after surgery.

RESULTS

All laparoscopic surgeries were successful. The general information, number of bowel movements before surgery, DIRP, GIQLI score, WIS score, and WCS score before surgery were not significantly different between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The WCS score, WIS score, GIQLI score, and DIRP in each group 6 mo, and 2 years after surgery were significantly better than before surgery (P < 0.001). In group A, the DIRP and WCS score gradually improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery (P < 0.001), and the GIQLI score progressively improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery (P < 0.05). In group B, the DIRP, WCS score and WIS score significantly improved from 6 mo to 2 years after surgery (P < 0.05), and the GIQLI score 2 years after surgery was significantly higher than that 6 mo after surgery (P < 0.05). The WCS score, WIS score, GIQLI score, and DIRP of group B were significantly better than those of group A 6 mo and 2 years after surgery (all P < 0.001, Bonferroni) except DIRP at 2 years after surgery. There was a significant difference in the recurrence rate of IRP between the two groups 6 mo after surgery (P = 0.011). There was no significant difference in postoperative grade I-III complications between the two groups (P = 0.822).

CONCLUSION

Integral theory–guided laparoscopic IPFLR combined with PPH has a higher cure rate and a better clinical efficacy than laparoscopic IPFLR alone.

[Retrospective cohort study on subtotal colonic bypass plus colostomy with antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy in the treatment of senile slow transit constipation]

Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic subtotal colonic bypass plus colostomy with antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy (SCBCAC) in the treatment of senile slow transit constipation. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Clinical data of 30 colonic slow transit constipation patients aged ≥70 years old undergoing laparoscopic SCBCAC from July 2012 to October 2016 (bypass plus colostomy group), and 28 patients undergoing laparoscopic subtotal colonic bypass with antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy (SCBAC) from February 2009 to June 2012 (bypass group) at our institute were collected. Efficacy was compared between the two procedures. Inclusion criteria: (1) meeting the Rome III diagnosis criteria for constipation; (2) confirmed diagnosis of slow transit constipation; (3) age ≥ 70 years old; (4) receiving non-surgical treatment for more than 5 years, and Wexner constipation score > 15; (5) follow-up for more than 2 years. Those with psychiatric symptoms or previous psychiatric history, obvious signs of outlet obstructive constipation, organic diseases of the colon and life-threatening cardiovascular diseases or cancer were excluded. In the bypass plus colostomy group, laparoscopy was performed via five trocars. The ileocecal junction and the ascending colon were mobilized and the ileocecal junction was pulled down to the pelvic inlet. The ascending colon was transected and the appendix was excised. The lateral peritoneum of the sigmoid colon and the rectal mesentery were dissected and the upper rectum was transected. The avil of a circular stapler was placed in the bottom of the cecum. The shaft of the stapler was placed in the rectum via the anal canal to complete end-to-side anastomosis (end rectum to lateral cecum). The end of the rectal-sigmoid colon was used for colostomy via an extraperitoneal approach to complete the operation. The following efficacy indexes were collected before surgery and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery: the number of daily bowel movements, the Wexner incontinence scale (WIS, 0-20, the lower the better), the Wexner constipation scale (WCS, 0-30, the lower the better), the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI, 0-144, the higher score, the better), abdominal pain intensity indicated by the numerical rating scale (NRS, 0-10, the lower score, the better), and the abdominal bloating score (ABS, 0-4, the lower score, the better). The complications defined as Clavien-Dindo class II or above were observed and recorded. Results: No significant differences in preoperative WCS, WIS, GIQLI, NRS, and ABS were observed between bypass plus colostomy group and bypass group (all P>0.05). All the patients successfully underwent laparoscopic surgery and no patient in either group experienced postoperative fecal incontinence. WCS and GIQLI were significantly improved (all P<0.001) at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery in both groups. At 12 months after surgery, the number of bowel movements was significantly less in bypass plus colostomy group than that in bypass group [(2.4±0.7) times vs. (3.4±1.2) times, t=4.048, P<0.001]. At 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery, the improvement of GIQLI in bypass plus colostomy group was significantly better than that in bypass group (all P<0.001). At 24 months after surgery, GIQLI in bypass plus colostomy group and bypass group was 122.3±5.3 and 92.8±16.6, respectively, with a significant difference (t=9.276, P<0.001). At 12 and 24 months after surgery, NRS in bypass plus colostomy group was significantly better than that in bypass group (both P<0.001). At 24 months after surgery, NRS in bypass plus colostomy group was 0.9±0.7, while that in bypass group was 3.7±2.7. There was a significant difference between two groups (t=5.585, P<0.001). At 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery, the improvement of ABS in bypass plus colostomy group was also significantly better than that in bypass group. At 24 months after surgery, ABS in bypass plus colostomy group was 0.6±0.6, while that in bypass group was 2.5±1.0, with a significant difference between two groups (t=8.797, P<0.001). At 1 year after surgery, barium enema examination was performed in all the patients of both groups. The barium emptying time was (21.2±3.8) hours and (95.8±86.2) hours in bypass plus colostomy group and bypass group respectively. The former group was significantly better than the latter group (t=4.740, P<0.001). Conclusions: Laparoscopic SCBCAC is an effective and safe procedure for the treatment of senile slow transit constipation and can significantly improve prognosis. Its clinical efficacy is better than laparoscopic SCBAC.

Subtotal colonic bypass plus colostomy with antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy for the treatment of slow transit constipation in an aged population: A retrospective control study

AIM

To compare the efficacy, improved quality of life, and prognosis in patients undergoing either subtotal colonic bypass with antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy (SCBAC) or subtotal colonic bypass plus colostomy with antiperistaltic cecoproctostomy (SCBCAC) for the treatment of slow transit constipation.

METHODS

Between October 2010 and October 2014, aged patients with slow transit constipation who were hospitalized and underwent laparoscopic surgery in our institute were divided into two groups: the bypass group, 15 patients underwent SCBAC, and the bypass plus colostomy group, 14 patients underwent SCBCAC. The following preoperative and postoperative clinical data were collected: gender, age, body mass index, operative time, first flatus time, length of hospital stay, bowel movements (BMs), Wexner fecal incontinence scale, Wexner constipation scale (WCS), gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI), numerical rating scale for pain intensity (NRS), abdominal bloating score (ABS), and Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications (CD) before surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo after surgery.

RESULTS

All patients successfully underwent laparoscopic surgery without open surgery conversion or surgery-related death. The operative time and blood loss were significantly less in the bypass group than in the bypass plus colostomy group (P = 0.007). No significant differences were observed in first flatus time, length of hospital stay, or complications with CD > 1 between the two groups. No patients had fecal incontinence after surgery. At 3, 6, and 12 mo after surgery, the number of BMs was significantly less in the bypass plus colostomy group than in the bypass group. The parameters at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo after surgery in both groups significantly improved compared with the preoperative conditions (P < 0.05), except NRS at 3, 6 mo after surgery in both groups, ABS at 12, 24 mo after surgery and NRS at 12, 24 mo after surgery in the bypass group. WCS, GIQLI, NRS, and ABS significantly improved in the bypass plus colostomy group compared with the bypass group at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo after surgery (P < 0.05) except WCS, NRS at 3, 6 mo after surgery and ABS at 3 mo after surgery. At 1 year after surgery, a barium enema examination showed that the emptying time was significantly better in the bypass plus colostomy group than in the bypass group (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic SCBCAC is an effective and safe procedure for the treatment of slow transit constipation in an aged population and can significantly improve the prognosis. Its clinical efficacy is more favorable compared with that of SCBAC. Laparoscopic SCBCAC is a better procedure for the treatment of slow transit constipation in an aged population.