The role of conventional pelvic floor reconstructive surgeries in obstructed defecation symptoms change: CARE and OPTIMAL trials sub-analysis of 2-year follow-up data.

Abstract

The current study was aimed at addressing two questions: first, is any conventional vaginal prolapse repair effective in curing obstructed defecation symptoms, and second, is there evidence to suggest that a sacrocolpopexy will increase the risk of worsening or new-onset obstructed defecation symptoms? This is a sub-analysis of two major clinical trials performed by the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network: the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) trial and the Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss (OPTIMAL) trial. Two-year follow-up data were included. Demographics, pelvic organ prolapse quantification examination, and symptoms were compared between first, two surgical arms in the OPTIMAL study and second, CARE and OPTIMAL datasets using Chi-squared test for categorical variables and Student's t test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. A total of 353 subjects form the OPTIMAL study and 279 subjects from the CARE study met the inclusion criteria. Regardless of trial, obstructed defecation symptoms were present in more than half of the patients at the initial visit before the surgical intervention, and interestingly, about one third of the patients were symptomatic at the 24-month follow-up in all surgical groups. The conventional vaginal prolapse surgeries, with or without posterior vaginal wall repair, improved obstructed defecation symptoms by 50%, but about 35% of patients were suffering from at least one of the aspects of obstructed defecation at the 24-month follow-up. It is also important to note that about a quarter of the patients experienced persisting or worsening of their obstructed defecation symptoms in the absence of anatomical failure.