A retrospective analysis of transanal surgical management of 291 cases with rectal foreign bodies.

Abstract

Rectal foreign bodies (RFB) are quite uncommon except in very busy hospitals. Because of their rarity, it is seldom that the treating physicians have a standard approach to the diagnosis, technique of extraction, and post-extraction evaluation. This can be further complicated by the rather extreme variability of size, shape, and texture of the foreign bodies, as well as the potential extent of trauma to the rectum or distal colon. The objectives of this study were to delineate the demographics, classification of cause, and injury patterns of RFB and to present the results of the transanal surgical management of a large series of RFB. We retrospectively collected extensive data from the hospital medical records of the 291 patients who presented with RFB to the emergency department of Shenyang Proctological Hospital (Shenyang, China) from 2012 July to 2020 December. Specifically, demographics, origins and circumstance of the RFB, complications, injuries, anesthesia method, and the results of the transanal surgical management were recorded and analyzed. Of the 291 RFB cases, 225 (77.3%) were male and 66 (22.7%) were female, with a mean age of 53.8 ± 15.5years (range, 1 ~ 88years). The circumstances of the RFB were categorized as swallowed, 199 cases (68.4%); self-inserted, 87 (29.9%); and iatrogenic, 5 (1.7%). The proportion of males in the self-inserted RFB group was significantly greater than the swallowed RFB group (t = 31.114, p = 0.000). In the swallowed RFB group, the most common anorectal injuries and pathological changes were the following: penetration into the mucosa (75 cases, 37.7%), perianal or submucosal abscess (27 cases, 13.6%), and penetration into the anal canal (18 cases, 9.0%). In the self-inserted RFB group, 64 (73.6%) of the 87 cases had an intact rectum, whereas 8 (9.2%) had rectal mucosal ulcers and bleeding, and 7 (8%) had rectal lacerations. In the iatrogenic RFB group, 3 cases (60%) had rectal mucosal ulcers and bleeding, and 2 cases (40%) had inflammation of the rectal mucosa. Regarding extraction procedures, in the swallowed group, 187(187/199; 94%) patients underwent a transanal surgical procedure, and all were successful. In the self-inserted group, 82 patients underwent the transanal surgical procedure, and 74 (74/82; 90.2%) were successful whereas it was unsuccessful in the remaining 8 patients (8/82, 9.8%). Three (3/4, 75%) patients with iatrogenic RFB were resolved by the transanal surgical procedure. Men were markedly more likely than women to have swallowed RFBs and self-inserted RFBs. No serious damage to the rectum and anus was found in cases of swallowed RFB. Moreover, most surgical operations to remove foreign bodies via the anus were successful in this category of RFB. In contrast, rectal injury was more severe in patients with self-inserted RFB, such as rectal laceration, rectal mucosal ulcer, and bleeding. Moreover, the transanal removal operation in patients with self-inserted RFB had a failure rate of nearly 10%. Thick, long, hard foreign bodies did present a great challenge to the operator. Therefore, if necessary, patients with foreign bodies may need to be promptly referred for transabdominal removal.