直肠悬吊固定和肛提肌折叠术治疗完全性直肠脱垂30例

目的探讨一种有效治疗完全性直肠脱垂伴随肛门失禁的外科治疗方法。方法2000年1月至2009年12月，30例完全性直肠脱垂伴发肛门失禁患者入院后进行肛门指诊、肛门测压（最大静息压MRP和最大收缩压MSP）和排粪造影的评估，30例均进行了直肠悬吊固定和肛提肌折叠术。观察术中的手术时间、出血量、并发症、复发情况及手术前后肛门测压值的变化。结果30例患者手术均顺利完成，平均手术时间65．5（60～90）min，出血量75（60—100）ml，本组无手术死亡发生，但术后1例切口感染，2例尿潴留，并发症发生率为10％。29例大便失禁改善，术后3个月所有患者MRP和MSP均改善，术前及术后MRP分别为2-30（26．6±2．40）mmHg和2～60（32．5±2．23）mmHg（Ｐ＝0．007），MSP术前及术后分别为8-152（69．3±6．50）mmHg和35～158（79．5±4．18）mmHg（P=0．001）。平均随访69个月，效果满意，均无复发。结论直肠悬吊固定和肛提肌折叠术不仅治愈了直肠脱垂而且改善了大便失禁，此术式安全有效。     

Transsacral rectopexy for recurrent complete rectal prolapse

The aim of this study was to examine the functional outcome of transsacral rectopexy performed with Dexon mesh for recurrent complete rectal prolapse. Anorectal function was assessed by anorectal manometry and defecography, before and from 1 year after surgery in five patients who were followed up for 1–3 years. The fecal incontinence score recovered from a preoperative mean score of 3.8 to a postoperative mean score of 1.2, and constipation was improved in four patients (80%). The straining anorectal angle (S-ARA), measured by defecography, improved from a preoperative value of 120.6°±6.9° to a postoperative value of 98.5°±3.5° (P<0.05), and the perineal descent (PD) improved from a preoperative value of 16.2±2.5 cm to a postoperative value of 8.1±1.3 cm (P<0.05). The maximal resting pressure (MRP) increased from a preoperative value of 20.5±3.7 cmH₂O to a postoperative value of 40.5±4.8 cmH₂O (P<0.05). These findings indicate that transsacral rectopexy with Dexon mesh can achieve good control of recurrent complete rectal prolapse.     

Incontinence in full‐thickness rectal prolapse: low level of improvement after laparoscopic rectopexy

Aim The study aimed to quantify incontinence before and after laparoscopic rectopexy in patients suffering from rectal prolapse. Method Eighty‐five patients underwent laparoscopic rectopexy to treat rectal prolapse between 2003 and 2009. Symptomatic and functional data were collected prospectively before and after surgery by self‐administered questionnaires including the Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence Score (CCIS) and constipation, gastrointestinal quality of life and urinary incontinence questionnaires. Incontinence was considered to be present when the CCIS remained at ≥ 5 after surgery. Results After a mean follow‐up period of 36 months after surgery, 83% of the patients reported good to excellent results. Continence was improved in 58 (68%), with a significant decrease in the continence score (?3.4 ± 5.8, P = 0.001). However, 50 (58.9%) patients remained incontinent: 47 (55%) reported urge incontinence and 27 (32%) had passive leakage. Incontinence for liquid stool, incontinence for solid stool and the need for protection was seen in 43 (51%), 35 (41%) and 43 (51%) patients. Manometry, defaecography and ultrasonography were not associated with any improvement. In contrast, the patients’ average age (60.2 ± 15.8 vs 46.9 ± 15.5 years; P = 0.003), symptom duration before surgery (58.1 ± 70.1 vs 29.5 ± 33.3 months; P = 0.011), preoperative urinary incontinence score (10.7 ± 10.8 vs 4.2 ± 5.7; P = 0.0131) and faecal incontinence score (12.9 ± 4.9 vs 7.1 ± 6; P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in patients suffering from postoperative incontinence. Conclusion Despite some continence improvement in two‐thirds of patients who underwent surgery for rectal prolapse, the level of improvement remained low in more than half of the patients.     

Resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse

Background: Resection rectopexy through open laparotomy is an established procedure for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Methods: Resection rectopexy was successfully performed in 10 multiparous women by the laparoscopic approach (LAP), and the results were compared to those of eight women with laparotomy resection rectopexy (OPEN). Preoperative and postoperative assessment included anorectal manometry, defecography, and measurement of large-bowel transit. Results: The duration of the operation was longer in the LAP than in the OPEN group (p < 0.01). Morbidity was lower (p < 0.01) and hospital stay was shorter (p < 0.001) after the LAP than in the OPEN group. Prolapse was cured in all cases. Postoperatively, anal resting and squeeze pressures and rectal compliance increased significantly in both groups of patients (p= 0.007, p= 0.003, and p < 0.001, respectively). In all patients, the operation resulted in acceleration of large-bowel transit (p < 0.001) and in more obtuse anorectal angles at rest (p= 0.007). In addition, sampling events were observed more commonly (p= 0.008) postoperatively. Preoperatively, incontinence was present in 13 patients (seven LAP and six OPEN) and persisted in four of them after rectopexy (two LAP and two OPEN). Conclusions: Resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse can be performed safely via the laparoscopic route. Recovery is uneventful and of shorter duration after the laparoscopic than after the open approach. Similarly satisfactory functional results are obtained with both procedures. Received: 16 February 1998/Accepted: 2 September 1998     

Resection rectopexy for external rectal prolapse reduces constipation and anal incontinence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The main aim was to examine constipation and anal incontinence in patients before and after resection for external rectal prolapse. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients had ligament preserving suture rectopexy and sigmoid resection (resection rectopexy) for external rectal prolapse by laparoscopic (n = 15) or open (n = 5) technique during 2001-2005. They were prospectively evaluated for constipation and anal incontinence using validated incontinence and KESS-constipation scores. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Constipation score was significantly reduced from mean 7.7 (5.4-9.9) to 4.5 (2.5-6.4) after median 4 months (1-19) and to 4.3 (2.2-6.3) after median 17 months (4-51). Six and four patients were constipated preoperatively and 17 months postoperatively, respectively. The four symptoms feeling incomplete evacuation of stool, minutes in lavatory per attempt, use of enemas/digitation and painful evacuation effort were significantly reduced, whilst stool consistency increased. Fourteen patients (70%) had anal incontinence. Corresponding and significant reduction in their scores were from mean 12.5 (9.4-15.5) to 5.1 (2.1-8.1) and to 3.6 (1.3-5.9). Incontinence was improved in 13 and unaltered in one patient(s). Two patients with worse outcome had increased stool consistency and constipation scores. Resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse reduced anal incontinence and constipation.     

The effect of abdominal ventral rectopexy on faecal incontinence and constipation in patients with internal intra‐anal rectal intussusception

Aim Optimal treatment of anal incontinence in a patients with a normal anal sphincter is controversial, as is the role of intra‐anal rectal intussusception in anal incontinence. We evaluated the results of abdominal ventral rectopexy on anal continence in such patients. Method Forty consecutive patients with incontinence and intra‐anal rectal intussusception without a sphincter defect were treated by abdominal ventral mesh rectopexy without sigmoidectomy. The Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS), patient satisfaction and constipation before and after surgery and recurrence were recorded. Results The mean CCI scores were 13.2 (=/?4.25) preoperatively and 3 (±3.44) postoperatively (P<0.0001). Patient assessment was reported as ‘cured’ in 26 (65%), ‘improved’ in 13 (32.5%) and ‘unchanged’ in one (2.5%) patient. Constipation was induced in two (5%) patients and was cured in 13 of 20 (65%) patients who were constipated before surgery. One case of recurrent prolapse occurred after a mean follow‐up of 38 months. Conclusion Intra‐anal rectal intussusception may be associated with anal incontinence. For these patients, abdominal ventral mesh rectopexy appears to be an adequate treatment.     

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse improves constipation and avoids de novo constipation

Objective Abdominal rectopexy is ideal for otherwise healthy patients with rectal prolapse because of low recurrence, yet after posterior rectopexy, half of the patients complain of severe constipation. Resection mitigates this dysfunction but risks a pelvic anastomosis. The novel nerve‐sparing ventral rectopexy appears to avoid postero‐lateral rectal dissection denervation and thus postoperative constipation. We aimed to evaluate our functional results with laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Method Consecutive rectal prolapse patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy were prospectively assessed (Wexner Constipation and Faecal Incontinence Severity Index scores) pre‐, 3 months postoperatively, and late (> 12 months). Results Sixty‐five consecutive patients with external rectal prolapse (median age 72 years, 34% > 80 years, median follow up 19 months) underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. There was one recurrence (2%) and one conversion. Morbidity (17%) and mortality (0%) were low. Median operating time was 140 min and median length of stay 2 days. At 3 months, constipation was improved in 72% and  mildly induced in 2% (median pre‐and postoperative Wexner scores 9 vs 4, P < 0.0001). Continence was improved in 83% and mild incontinence was induced or  worsened in 5% (median pre‐ and postoperative incontinence score 40 vs 4, P < 0.0001). Significant improvement in both constipation and incontinence (P < 0.0001) remained at median 24 months late follow‐up. Conclusion Ventral rectopexy has a recurrent prolapse rate of < 5%, similar to that of posterior rectopexy. Its correction of preoperative constipation and avoidance of de novo constipation appear superior to historical functional results of posterior rectopexy. A laparoscopic approach allows low morbidity and short hospital stay, even in those patients over 80 years of age in whom a perineal approach is usually preferred for safety.     

Laparoscopic rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of laparoscopic rectopexy and its effect on anorectal function investigations. Methods: Twelve patients with complete rectal prolapse without constipation underwent laparoscopic rectopexy. Pre- and postoperative evaluation included scoring of incontinence, anorectal manometry, and anal endosonography. Results: No recurrences of rectal prolapse were seen (median follow-up 19 months). Continence improved in eight of nine preoperatively incontinent patients. Two patients had mild constipation after surgery. Median maximum basal pressure measured by anorectal manometry increased from 20 to 25 mmHg (p=0.005) and the rectoanal inhibitory reflex improved in seven patients (p=0.03). Rectal sensitivity did not change significantly. Endosonography showed asymmetry and thickening of the internal anal sphincter and submucosa preoperatively. After surgery the maximum internal anal sphincter thickness decreased from 3.0 mm to 2.6 mm (p=0.02). Conclusions: Laparoscopic rectopexy improved continence in our patients. Anorectal function tests show a partial recovery of the internal anal sphincter. Laparoscopic rectopexy combines the low morbidity of minimal invasive surgery with the good outcome of abdominal rectopexy.Presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), Orlando, Florida, USA, 11–14 March 1995     

Anal manometric parameters: Predictors of outcome following anal sphincter repair?

Controversy exists over the utility of manometry in the management of fecal incontinence. In light of newer methods for the management of fecal incontinence demonstrating favorable results, this study was designed to evaluate manometric parameters relative to functional outcome following overlapping sphincteroplasty. Twenty women, 29 to 84 years of age (mean age 50 years), with severe fecal incontinence and large (≥50%) sphincter defects on ultrasound were studied. All participants underwent anal manometry (mean resting pressure, mean squeeze pressure, anal canal length, compliance), pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML) testing, and completed the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons fecal incontinence severity index (FISI) survey before and 6 weeks after sphincter repair. Statistical analysis for all data included the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Mann-Whitney test, and Spearman’s correlation. Significant perioperative improvement was seen in the absolute resting and squeeze pressures and anal canal length. Overlapping sphincteroplasty was also associated with significant improvement in fecal incontinence scores (FISI 36 vs. 16.4; P = 0.0001). Although no single preoperative manometric parameter was able to predict outcome following sphincteroplasty, preoperative mean resting and squeeze pressures as well as anal canal length inversely correlated with the relative changes in these parameters achieved postoperatively. These findings suggest that either the physiologic parameters studied are not predictive of functional outcome or the scoring system used is ineffective in determining function. The perioperative paradoxical changes in resting pressure, squeeze pressure, and anal canal length would support the use of overlapping sphincteroplasty in patients with significant sphincter defects and poor anal tone.     

Outcome of Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Complete Rectal Prolapse in Patients Older than 70 Years Versus Younger Patients

Purpose To evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse in patients above 70 years of age, compared with that in younger patients.Methods Between October 1997 and September 2001, 14 consecutive patients with complete rectal prolapse underwent laparoscopic rectopexy. Nine patients were aged 70 years or older, and five were aged under 70 years. All of the patients were ambulant and well enough to tolerate surgery under general anesthesia. Each patient was monitored pre- and postoperatively, for fecal incontinence, constipation, recurrent prolapse, morbidity, and mortality.Results The median follow-up period was 34.5 (range 5–54) months. No significant differences were noted in the hospitalization, incidence of complications, recurrence rate, and functional outcome.Conclusion The outcome of laparoscopic rectopexy in elderly patients is similar to that in younger patients. Therefore, advanced age alone should not be a contraindication to laparoscopic rectopexy.     

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse: short‐term functional results

Objective Over the last 15 years, posterior rectopexy, which causes rectal autonomic denervation, was discredited for internal rectal prolapse because of poor results. The condition became medical, managed largely by biofeedback. We aimed to audit the short‐term functional results of autonomic nerve‐sparing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for internal rectal prolapse. Method Prospectively collected data on LVR for internal rectal prolapse were analysed. End‐points were changes in bowel function (Wexner Constipation Score and Fecal Incontinence Severity Index) at 3 and 12 months. Analysis was performed using Mann–Whitney U‐test for unpaired data and Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data (two‐sided p‐test). Functional outcomes were compared with those achieved previously for external rectal prolapse (ERP). Results Seventy‐five patients underwent LVR (median age 58, range 25–88 years, median follow up was 12 months). Mortality (0%), major (0%) and minor morbidity (4%) were acceptably low. Median length of stay was 2 days. Preoperative constipation (median Wexner score 12) and faecal incontinence (median FISI score 28) improved significantly at 3 months (Wexner 4, FISI 8, both P < 0.0001) and 12 months (Wexner 5, FISI 8, both P < 0.0001). No patient had worse function. Functional outcomes were similar to those for ERP. Conclusion Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse improves symptoms of obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence in the short‐term. This establishes proof of concept for a nerve‐sparing surgical treatment for internal rectal prolapse.     

生物反馈治疗中低位直肠癌保肛术后排粪失禁

目的 探讨生物反馈治疗对于中低位直肠癌术后排粪功能障碍的疗效.方法 对24例中低位直肠癌术后排粪功能障碍的患者予以生物反馈治疗（治疗组）,进行治疗前后直肠肛管压力检测及肛管功能评分（Vaizey评分和Wexner评分）,并与同期住院的18例无排粪功能障碍患者（对照组）进行比较.结果 治疗组患者术后肛管静息压（27.8＋9.0）mm Hg,最大收缩压（118.3±42.9）mm Hg,直肠初始感觉容量（19.0±6.1）ml,直肠最大耐受容量（97.5±52.8）ml;显著低于对照组的（55.7±8.5）mm Hg、（233.2±31.7）mm Hg、（25.8±4.4）ml和（229.3±39.7）ml（均P〈0.01 ）.经生物反馈训练后,肛管静息压、最大收缩压和直肠最大耐受容量显著性提高,分别为（47.9±9.3）mm Hg、（193.2±38.2）mm Hg和（189.1±39.0）ml（P〈0.01）,而直肠初始感觉容量未见明显增加[（21.5±4.8）ml,P=0.101].治疗组患者生物反馈治疗前的Vaizey评分和Wexner评分为12.9±2.8和10.1±2.6;治疗后显著降低,分别为10.5±2.3和7.5±2.5（P〈0.01）.结论 生物反馈治疗方法可以改善直肠癌保肛手术后肛门功能障碍.     

Abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparison of techniques.

To compare the methods of abdominal rectopexy and to elucidate the mechanism by which rectopexy restores continence in patients with rectal prolapse, the role of sphincter recovery, rectal morphological changes and improved rectal sensation were assessed in 68 patients (eight men, 60 women) of median age 63 (range 18-83) years undergoing resection rectopexy (n = 29), anterior and posterior Marlex rectopexy (n = 20), posterior Ivalon rectopexy (n = 9) or suture rectopexy (n = 10). Preoperative and postoperative manometry, radiology and electrosensitivity measurements were made. Age and duration of follow-up were similar in all groups and the prolapse was controlled in all patients. Significantly improved continence was seen in all but the Ivalon group. There was no evidence of increasing postoperative constipation. Sphincter length and voluntary contraction were unaltered, but improved resting tone was seen in the resection and suture groups. This was not seen in the prosthetic groups. Improved continence correlated with recovery of resting pressure. Upper and sensation was improved in all groups. Radiological changes did not correlate with improved continence. We conclude that continence is improved by all rectopexy procedures but seems better without prosthetic material. Sphincter recovery seems to be the most important factor.     

Laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse

Background: There have been few large series that have focused on the feasibility of the laparoscopic approach for rectal prolapse. This single-institution study prospectively examines the surgical outcome and changes in symptoms and bowel function following the laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse. Methods: In a selected group of 34 patients (total prolapse, 28; intussusception, six), 17 patients underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection rectopexy and 17 patients received a laparoscopic sutured rectopexy. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation at 3, 6, and 12 months included assessment of the severity of anal incontinence, constipation, changes in constipation-related symptoms, and colonic transit time. Results: Median operation time was 255 min (range, 180–360) in the resection rectopexy group and 150 min (range, 90–295) in the rectopexy alone group. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (range, 3–15) and median time off work was 14 days (range, 12–21) in both groups. There were no deaths. Postoperative morbidity was 24%. Incontinence improved significantly regardless of which method was used. The main determinant of constipation was excessive straining at defecation. Constipation was cured in 70% of the patients in the rectopexy group and 64% in the resection rectopexy group. Symptoms of difficult evacuation improved, but the changes were significant only after resection rectopexy. Two patients (7%) developed recurrent total prolapse during a median follow-up of 2 years (range 12–60 months). Conclusions: Laparoscopic-sutured rectopexy and laparoscopic-assisted resection rectopexy are feasible and carry an acceptable morbidity rate. They eliminate prolapse and cure incontinence in the great majority of patients. Constipation and symptoms of difficult evacuation are alleviated. Received: 30 April 1999/Accepted: 8 July 1999/Online publication: 22 May 2000     

Rectal resection with low anastomosis: functional outcome

Objective Function after anterior, low anterior and intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer was studied. Method Of 139 patients 122 responded to a standardized questionnaire (Cleveland Clinic Continence Score) 108 ± 46 weeks postoperatively and 70 underwent anorectal manometry at 26 ± 15 weeks. Results The postoperative continence score was dependent on the procedure (anterior resection 4.1 ± 4.6, low anterior resection 6.9 ± 5.6, intersphincteric resection 11.5 ± 5.2; P < 0.0001). It was poorer after radiochemotherapy (9.0 vs. 5.7; P = 0.030), but after colonic pouch reconstruction there was no significant difference between low anterior resection (5.6 vs. 7.3) and intersphincteric resection (10.0 vs. 12.5). Mean and maximal resting pressures were significantly reduced after intersphincteric resection (24 ± 9 and 40 ± 13 mmHg, respectively, P < 0.001) and further reduced by radiochemotherapy. Squeeze pressure was unaffected by the operative procedures and radiochemotherapy. Maximum tolerable volume and rectal compliance were reduced, after both low anterior and intersphincteric resection. Statistical correlation between continence score and maximal resting pressure (P = 0.014), mean resting pressure (P = 0.002), urge volume (P = 0.037), and neorectal compliance (P = 0.0018) reached significance. Satisfaction with the functional outcome was expressed by 71% of patients. Conclusion After rectal resection the degree of impaired continence depended on the operative procedure and the form of reestablishment of intestinal continuity. Radiochemotherapy affected the outcome adversely. Despite reduced function, overall patient satisfaction was high.     

Anteriore und posteriore rektopexie mit levatorraffung bei patienten mit rektumprolaps und inkontinenz

Zusammenfassung Diese prospektive klinische, manometrische und radiologische Studie bei 18 weiblichen Patienten mit komplettem Rektumprolaps und einer Inkontinenz unterschiedlicher Ausprägung untersucht die Ergebnisse der dorsalen abdominellen Rektopexie (Ivalon oder Vicryl) in Verbindung mit einer hinteren pelvinen Raffung des M. puborectalis. Das Durchschnittsalter der Patientinnen lag bei 62 Jahren. Bei 13 der Prolapspatienten, die zusätzlich an einer Obstipation litten, wurde eine kombinierte Rektopexie mit Sigmoidektomie durchgeführt. Postoperativ kam es zu einer signifikanten Erhöhung des Ruhe- und Kontraktionsdrucks (p = 0,01). Bei 16 Patienten (89%) kam es zu einer Verbesserung der Kontinenzleistung, in 9 Fällen (56%) zu einer kompletten Wiederherstellung der Kontinenz. Es wurde postoperativ keine signifikante Veränderung in bezug auf die Beckenbodenebene und den anorektalen Winkel beobachtet. Die abdominelle Rektopexie mit Resektion konnte die Obstipation bei 9 von 13 Patienten (70%) beseitigen.

---

Anterior and posterior rectopexy with pelvic repair in patients with rectal prolapse and incontinence

A prospective clinical, manometric and radiological study has been performed, before and after rectopexy, on 18 female patients with complete rectal prolapse, and varying degrees of incontinence. All patients, mean age 62 years, underwent anterior-posterior fixation (Ivalon or Vicryl) of the rectum with posterior pelvic repair of the puborectalis muscle. 13 patients with obstipation and rectal prolapse were treated by rectopexy combined with sigmoidectomy. Postoperatively there was a significant increase in the resting anal pressure and maximum voluntary contraction pressure (p = 0.01). Continence was improved in 16 patients (89 percent), 9 (56 percent) of whom regained normal continence. No significant change in pelvic descent or anorectal angle was seen postoperatively. Following abdominal rectopexy and resection obstipation was reduced in 9 of 13 patients (70 percent).

     

Effect of rectal distension on voluntary external anal sphincter function in healthy subjects

Aim Quantification of the anorectal reflex function is critical for explaining the physiological control of continence. Reflex external anal sphincter activity increases with rectal distension in a dynamic response. We hypothesized that rectal distension would similarly augment voluntary external anal sphincter function, quantified by measuring the anal maximum squeeze pressure. Method Fifty‐seven subjects (32 men, 25 women; median age 62 years), with normal anal canal manometry and endoanal ultrasound results, underwent a rectal barostat study with simultaneous anal manometry. Stepwise isovolumetric 50‐ml distensions (n = 35) or isobaric 4‐mmHg distensions (n = 22) above the minimum distending pressure were performed (up to 200 ml or 16 mmHg respectively), whilst anal resting pressure and maximum squeeze pressure were recorded and compared with the baseline pressure. Results The distension‐induced squeeze increment was calculated as the maximum percentage increase in maximum squeeze pressure with progressive rectal distension. This was observed in 53 of the 57 subjects as a mean ± standard deviation (range) increase of 32.8 ± 24.1 (?5.5 to 97.7)%. The mean ± standard deviation (range) distension‐induced squeeze increment in male subjects was 36.1 ± 25.7 (?5.5 to 97.7)% and in female subjects was 28.1 ± 20.1 (?3.8 to 70.2)%. There was no significant difference between the sexes (P = 0.194). Conclusion Rectal distension augments external anal sphincter function, confirming the existence of a dynamic rectoanal response. This may represent a quantifiable and important part of the continence mechanism.     

No Surgery for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse: What Happens with Continence?

Background

Surgery is the only validated means of treating overt rectal prolapses, but both patients and physicians may decline or postpone the surgical approach. However, little is known on the functional outcome of nonoperated rectal prolapse. The aim of the present study was to highlight the natural history of overt rectal prolapse in patients for whom surgery was avoided or delayed.

Patients and methods

A total of 206 patients complaining of full-thickness rectal prolapse were referred to a single institution that provided anorectal physiology for functional anorectal disorders. Standardized questionnaires, anorectal manometry, endosonography, and evacuation proctography constituted a prospective database. Fecal incontinence was evaluated with the Cleveland Clinic score (CCIS), and constipation was evaluated with the Knowles Eccersley Scott Symptom score (KESS).

Results

Forty-two nonoperated patients (mean age: 61 ± 16 years) were compared to those of operated patients paired according to age and gender: the mean follow-up was 44 ± 26 months. The two groups had a similar past-history, follow-up, stool frequency, and main complaints, but lower quantified symptomatic scores and a better quality of life were reported in the nonsurgical group. At the end of follow-up, the nonsurgical group did not show any variation in CCI and KESS scores. By contrast, these two scores significantly improved in the rectopexy group. Sixteen nonoperated patients experienced a degradation of their continence status with an average increase of 5 ± 4.3 points of the CCIS. The patients with a CCIS <7 at referral were likely to deteriorate as compared to those having a higher score. Patients with a symptom history longer than 4 years never improved and in two-thirds continence deteriorated throughout the follow-up.

Conclusion

In the absence of the surgical option, patients with a 4-year duration of rectal prolapse and those with mild incontinence had no chance of improvement. These findings may be taken into account when surgery of rectal prolapse is not chosen.     

Rectal prolapse. Functional results after the Orr-Loygue's rectopexy technique

The aims of surgery in rectal prolapse are various: reducing the prolapse, preventing relapse, clearing up incontinence and avoiding constipation. Among several technical options available, anterior rectopexy would appear to be the most suitable for achieving these aims. A retrospective clinical study was conducted in 32 patients operated on from January 1996 to June 1999. For patient recruitment, the preoperative examinations were clinical evaluation, barium enema, anorectal manometry, and urodynamic tests. Surgical procedures were Orr-Loygue rectopexy in 29 cases and Ripstein rectopexy in 3 cases. A sigmoidectomy was also performed in 9 cases and a Burch cystopexy in 4 cases. Early results are available for all patients; only 29 have been evaluated after a mean follow-up of 47 months (range: 30-72). Rectal tenesmus, faecal incontinence and urinary incontinence improved in all cases. Constipation cleared up in 9 cases after a complementary sigmoidectomy; in 15 of the remaining 20 patients constipation persisted or developed. Indications for surgery for rectal prolapse must be considered with caution. The good results of anterior rectopexy depend on correct surgical technique and prevention of septic and pelvic complications. Sigmoidectomy does not increase the morbility rate. A planned colic resection in patients with delayed transit would prevent postoperative constipation. The good results are stable even over long-term follow-up periods. This procedure is also effective for the treatment of genital prolapses.     

Treatment of rectal prolapse. A clinical study of 50 consecutive patients

The results of surgical treatment of rectal prolapse in 50 consecutive adult patients were evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 51.8 +/- 15.9 years. 8 of the patients were males. 13 of the patients had recurrent prolapse after operations performed earlier elsewhere. There were 4 types of operations: Delorme's mucosal sleeve resection (n = 21), perineal rectosigmoidectomy (n = 7), low anterior resection (n = 12) and abdominal rectopexy (n = 10). There was no operative mortality. The main postoperative complications were perforation or stricture of the rectum in the Delorme group and ileus and anastomotic complications in the low anterior resection group. The frequency of postoperative complications was clearly highest in the low anterior resection group (67%). Follow-up examination was performed 5.2 +/- 3.9 years postoperatively. The recurrence rate of prolapse was highest after perineal operations. Fecal incontinence was almost always associated with recurrence of prolapse and its incidence increased with reoperation. In conclusion, abdominal rectopexy was superior to other forms of operation in the treatment of rectal prolapse. Successfull correction of rectal prolapse does not necessarily rule out the need for later surgery for faecal incontinence.