High-grade Internal Rectal Prolapse Research Articles

SP10.1 Post operative complications and functional outcome after ventral mesh and suture rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single centre observational study

Abstract Aims Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is a technique gaining more recognition for the management of pelvic floor disorders, such as external rectal prolapse (ERP), high grade internal rectal prolapse (IRP) and rectocele. The aim of this study was to evaluate post op complications (early, late and mesh) and functional outcomes after a standardized LVMR. Methods All patients who underwent Rectopexy from February 2008 to April 2021 were included into the study. The patients were evaluated preoperatively, at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Surgical complications, mesh complications (mesh detachment, erosion and infection) and functional results in terms of faecal incontinence, recurrence and ODS were analysed. Results 95 patients (88 – LVMR; 7 - suture Rectopexy) who underwent Rectopexy were included in the study with a mean age of 68 and female predominance of 90 patients. 30 patients had external rectal prolapse (ERP), 45 patients had internal rectal prolapse (IRP) or intussusception, 20 patients had both ERP and IRP (Table 3). 53 patients had preoperative MRI scan and 15 patients had preoperative proctogram. (Table 4). 92 patients did not have any early complications. 13 patients had late postoperative complications including recurrent prolapse, stoma formation, suture migration and incisional hernia. Mesh complications were seen in 2 patients with mesh erosion and mesh detachment, both of whom had non-absorbable stitches used. There were no post op deaths documented. During the follow up period, 12 patient developed symptoms of ODS. Conclusion LVMR is a safe and effective treatment for rectal prolapse. Careful patient selection, appropriate preoperative workup, and meticulous surgical technique undoubtedly transforms postoperative outcomes.

Evaluation of the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

The current standard treatment for external rectal prolapse and symptomatic high-grade internal rectal prolapse is surgical correction with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy using either laparoscopy or robotic assistance. This study examines the number of procedures needed to complete the learning curve for robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and reach adequate performance. A retrospective analysis of all primary RVMR from 2011 to 2019 performed in a tertiary pelvic floor clinic by two colorectal surgeons (A and B) was performed. Both surgeons had previous experience with laparoscopic rectopexy, but no robotic experience. Skin-to-skin operating times (OT) were assessed using LC-CUSUM analyses. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed using CUSUM analyses. A total of 182 (surgeon A) and 91 (surgeon B) RVMRs were performed in total. There were no relevant differences in patient characteristics between the two surgeons. Median OT was 75min (range 46-155; surgeon A) and 90min (range 63-139; surgeon B). The learning curve regarding OT was completed after 36 procedures for surgeon A and 55 procedures for surgeon B. Both before and after completion of the learning curve, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates remained below a predefined acceptable level of performance. 36 to 55 procedures are required to complete the learning curve for RVMR. The implementation of robotic surgery does not inflict any additional risks on patients at the beginning of a surgeon's learning curve.

Surgical decision-making for rectal prolapse: one size does not fit all

ABSTRACT Background Surgery remains the only known treatment option for rectal prolapse. Although over 100 abdominal and perineal procedures are available, there is no consensus as to which intervention is best suited for an individual. This retrospective cohort study describes the patient- and disease-related factors involved in making surgical recommendations around rectal prolapse in a single surgeon experience. Methods 91 consecutive patients ≥18 years old diagnosed with external and/or high-grade internal rectal prolapse were assessed and were prospectively entered into an IRB approved registry. Information on patient symptoms, comorbidities, exam findings, surgeon judgment, and patient preference was collected. Treatment recommendations (abdominal, perineal, or no operation) were analyzed and compared. Results Surgical intervention was recommended to 93% of patients. Of those, 66% were recommended robotic abdominal procedures: 75%, robotic ventral mesh rectopexies; 16%, resection rectopexies; and 9%, suture rectopexies. On univariate analysis, patients with older age, higher ASA scores, presence of cardiopulmonary morbidity, pain as a primary rectal prolapse symptom, rectal prolapse always descended, and surgeon concern for frailty and general anesthesia were associated with recommendations for perineal operations (p < 0.05 for all). However, on multivariate analysis, only age and concern over prolonged anesthesia remained correlated with a recommendation for perineal surgery. Of patients >80 years of age, 15% were recommended an abdominal approach. Conclusions With multiple options available for the treatment of rectal prolapse, treatment recommendations remain surgeon-dependent and may be influenced by many factors. In our practice, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was the most commonly recommended operation and was offered to carefully selected patients of advanced age. Although robotic surgery and ventral mesh rectopexy may not be accessible to all patients and surgeons, this represents a single surgeon’s practice bias. This study reinforces the importance of perineal procedures for higher-risk individuals.

Short term outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse: case series.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is a technique gaining more recognition for the management of pelvic floor disorders, such as external rectal prolapse (ERP), high grade internal rectal prolapse (IRP) and rectocele. LVMR also allows correction of coexisted pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and functional outcome of LVMR for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse. All patients who underwent LVMR from February 2014 to October 2017 were included into the study. The patients were evaluated preoperatively and three months postoperatively. Surgical complications and functional results in terms of fecal incontinence (measured with the Wexner Incontinence Score= WIS) and constipation (measured with the Wexner Constipation Score= WCS) were analyzed. Thirty (4 males) patients underwent LVMR. Seventeen (56.6%) patients had complex pelvic organ prolapse according to MRI findings. Median operative time and postoperative stay were 110 minutes and 4 days, respectively. No mesh-related complication and recurrence were observed. Before surgery, 21 (70%) patients had complained about symptoms of obstructed defecation. WCS decreased significantly from median 19 to 6 (p <0.001). Preoperative median WIS of 9 patients was 14 and went down to 6 postoperatively (p= 0.008). WCS significantly improved after LVMR in patients with symptomatic rectocele combined with enterocele or sigmoidocele (p= 0.005), and significant improvement was also observed in patients with symptomatic rectocele combined with gynecologic organ prolapse, preoperative median WCS was 18 and the postoperative value fell to 8 (p= 0.005). LVMR is an effective surgical option for rectal and complex pelvic organ prolapse with short-term follow-up.

Rectal axis and enterocele on proctogram may predict laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy outcomes for rectal intussusception.

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has become a well-established treatment for symptomatic high-grade internal rectal prolapse. The aim of this study was to identify proctographic criteria predictive of a successful outcome. One hundred and twenty consecutive patients were evaluated from a prospectively maintained pelvic floor database. Pre- and post-operative functional results were assessed with the Wexner constipation score (WCS) and Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI). Proctogram criteria were analyzed against functional results. These included grade of intussusception, presence of enterocele, rectocele, excessive perineal descent and the orientation of the rectal axis at rest (vertical vs. horizontal). Ninety-one patients completed both pre- and post-operative follow-up questionnaires. Median pre-operative WCS was 14 (range 10-17), and median FISI was 20 (range 0-61), with 28 patients (31%) having a FISI above 30. The presence of an enterocele was associated with more frequent complete resolution of obstructed defecation (70 vs. 52%, p=0.02) and fecal incontinence symptoms (71 vs. 38%, p=0.01) after LVMR. Patients with a more horizontal rectum at rest pre-operatively had significantly less resolution of symptoms post-operatively (p=0.03). These data show that proctographic findings can help predict functional outcomes after LVMR. Presence of an enterocele and a vertical axis of the rectum at rest may be associated with a better resolution of symptoms.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for obstructed defecation in patients with overt pelvic structural abnormalities—a Chinese pilot study

As laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) gained increasing popularity in the past decade, studies from non-western area remain rare. The aim of this pilot study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LVR for obstructed defecation (OD) in Chinese patients with overt pelvic structural abnormalities. A series of 19 consecutive patients is presented undergoing LVR for OD. All patients showed various forms of pelvic structural abnormalities which were verified by dynamic defecography exam. Data was prospectively recorded and the functional outcomes were evaluated using the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) and Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Score (PAC-QoL). Pelvic structural abnormalities of the 19 patients included external rectal prolapse (ER) in 10.5% (2/19), high grade internal rectal prolapse (IR) in 57.8% (11/19), rectocele in 52.6% (10/19), enterocele in 15.7% (3/19), cystocele/vaginal prolapse in 15.7 (3/19), descending perineum (DP) in 63.5% (12/19). 89.4% patients (17/19) showed at least two co-existed abnormalities and 15.7% (3/19) showed multicompartmental abnormalities. The mean follow-up was 9months (range 1-18). No mesh-related complication was observed. At last available follow-up (LAFU), improvement of OD symptom was observed in 15 (78.9%) patients, the mean scores of CCCS decreased from 17 to 10 (p<0.05), all four subsets of PAC-QoL scores improved, and three of them (physical discomfort, worries and concerns, satisfaction) showed statistical significance (p<0.05). Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy appears to be a safe and effective procedure for obstructed defecation in Chinese patients with overt pelvic structural abnormalities in short-term follow-up.

Sacral neuromodulation for persistent faecal incontinence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for high-grade internal rectal prolapse.

Internal rectal prolapse is recognized as an aetiological factor in faecal incontinence. Patients found to have a high-grade internal rectal prolapse on routine proctography are offered a laparoscopic ventral rectopexy after failed maximum medical therapy. Despite adequate anatomical repair, faecal incontinence persists in a number of patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of sacral neuromodulation in this group of patients. Between August 2009 and January 2012, 52 patients who underwent a laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for faecal incontinence associated with high-grade internal rectal prolapse had persistent symptoms of faecal incontinence and were offered sacral neuromodulation. Symptoms were evaluated before and after the procedure using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). Temporary test stimulation was successful in 47 (94%) of the patients who then underwent implantation of a permanent pulse generator. The median FISI score 1 year after sacral neuromodulation was lower than the median score before [34 (28-59) vs. 19 (0-49); P < 0.01], indicating a significant improvement in faecal continence. Quality of life (GIQLI) was significantly better after starting sacral neuromodulation [78 (31-107) vs. 96 (55-129); P < 0.01]. Patients may benefit from sacral neuromodulation for persisting faecal incontinence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy.

High-grade internal rectal prolapse: Does it explain so-called “idiopathic” faecal incontinence?

BackgroundFaecal incontinence is a multifactorial disorder, with multiple treatment options. The role of internal rectal prolapse in the aetiology of faecal incontinence is debated. Recent data has shown the importance of high-grade internal rectal prolapse in case of faecal incontinence. We aimed to determine the incidence and relevance of internal rectal prolapse in patients with faecal incontinence without an anal sphincter defect. MethodsPatient data, collected in a prospective pelvic floor database, were assessed. All females with moderate to severe pure faecal incontinence, without obstructed defecation and sphincter muscle defects, were included. Data on defecation proctography, anorectal physiology and incontinence scores were analysed. ResultsOf 2082 females in the database, 174 fitted the inclusion criteria. High-grade internal rectal prolapse was found in 49% of patients and was associated predominantly with urge faecal incontinence. Passive faecal incontinence was more common in low-grade compared to high-grade internal rectal prolapse patients. Maximum resting pressure was lower in older patients and in patients with high-grade compared to low-grade internal rectal prolapse. Internal rectal prolapse grade was not significantly correlated with faecal incontinence severity score. ConclusionHigh-grade internal rectal prolapse is common in female patients suffering particularly urge faecal incontinence, without anal sphincter lesions. Defecation proctography should be routine in the work up of faecal incontinence.

Sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence: is the outcome compromised in patients with high-grade internal rectal prolapse?

High-grade internal rectal prolapse appears to be one of the contributing factors in the multifactorial origin of faecal incontinence. Whether it affects the outcome of sacral neuromodulation is unknown. We compared the functional results of sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence in patients with and without a high-grade internal rectal prolapse. One hundred six consecutive patients suffering from faecal incontinence, who were eligible for sacral neuromodulation between 2009 and 2012, were identified from a prospective database. All patients underwent preoperative defaecating proctography, anorectal manometry and ultrasound. Symptoms were assessed preoperatively and at 12 months after operation using a standardized questionnaire incorporating the Faecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI range = 0-61) and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). Success was defined as a decrease in the FISI score of 50 % or more. High-grade internal rectal prolapse (HIRP) was found in 36 patients (34%). The patient characteristics were similar in both groups. Temporary test stimulation was successful in 60 patients without HIRP (86%) and in 25 patients with HIRP (69 %) (p = 0.03). A permanent pulse generator was then implanted on these patients. After 1-year follow-up, the median FISI was reduced in patients without HIRP from 37 to 23 (p < 0.01). No significant change in FISI score was observed in patients with a HIRP (FISI, 38 to 34; p = 0.16). Quality of life (GIQLI) was only improved in patients without HIRP. A successful outcome per protocol was achieved in 31 patients without HIRP (52%) versus 4 patients with HIRP (16%) (p < 0.01). The presence of a high-grade internal rectal prolapse has a detrimental effect on sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence.

Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy for Faecal Incontinence: Equivalent Benefit is seen in Internal and External Rectal Prolapse

AimAn external rectal prolapse (ERP) is often associated with faecal incontinence, and surgery is the recommended therapy. It has been suggested that correction of a high grade internal rectal prolapse (HIRP) is also worthwhile for patients with faecal incontinence. The aim of the present study is to compare the results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) in patients with faecal incontinence associated with either an ERP or a HIRP. MethodConsecutive patients suffering from faecal incontinence, who underwent a LVR between June 2010 and October 2012, were identified from a prospective database. All patients underwent preoperative defaecating proctography, anorectal manometry and ultrasound. Symptoms were assessed preoperatively and at 1 year after operation using a standardized questionnaire incorporating the Faecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI; range 0–61) and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). ResultsLVR was performed in 50 incontinent patients with a HIRP, and in 41 patients with an ERP. Preoperatively, the FISI was higher in patients with HIRP (HIRP 42 versus ERP 30, P < 0.01). The recurrence rate at 1 year was similar in both groups (HIRP 6 % versus ERP 2 %, P = 0.156). The FISI scores were significantly reduced in both groups (HIRP 48 % versus ERP 50 %, both P < 0.01). GIQLI was equally improved in both groups (HIRP 17 % versus ERP 18 %, both P < 0.01). ConclusionLaparoscopic ventral rectopexy for the treatment of faecal incontinence achieves equivalent outcomes in both patients with an external rectal prolapse or high grade internal rectal prolapse.

Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy for Fecal Incontinence Associated with High-Grade Internal Rectal Prolapse

The role of internal rectal prolapse in the origin of fecal incontinence remains to be defined. In our institution, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is offered to patients with high-grade internal prolapse and fecal incontinence. The present study was designed to evaluate the functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in patients with fecal incontinence associated with high-grade internal rectal prolapse. This study was designed as a prospective observational study. The study took place in a university hospital. Between 2009 and 2011, 72 patients with fecal incontinence not responding to maximum medical treatment (including biofeedback) were included. All patients had a grade III or grade IV rectal prolapse. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy was performed. Preoperative endoanal ultrasonography and anorectal manometry were performed. Fecal continence was evaluated by using the Rockwood Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score before and 1 year after surgery. The median fecal incontinence severity index score 1 year after surgery was lower than the median score before surgery (15 versus 31; p < 0.01), representing an improvement in fecal continence. This was a preliminary observational study with no control group, no postoperative proctography, and no postoperative anal physiology. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy can improve symptoms of fecal incontinence in patients with a high-grade internal rectal prolapse. Internal rectal prolapse contributes to the multifactorial origin of fecal incontinence.

Impact of slow transit constipation on the outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for obstructed defaecation associated with high grade internal rectal prolapse

Limited literature exists on whether slow colonic transit adversely influences the results of outlet obstruction surgery. We compared the functional results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for obstructed defaecation secondary to high grade internal rectal prolapse in patients with normal and slow colonic transit. Consecutive patients suffering from obstructed defaecation associated with an internal rectal prolapse, who underwent an LVR between 2007 and 2011, were identified from a prospective database. All patients underwent preoperative defaecating proctography, anorectal manometry and colonic transit studies. Symptoms were assessed preoperatively and at 12months after operation using a standardized questionnaire incorporating the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) questionnaire, the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) scale and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). In all, 151 patients underwent LVR, 109 with normal and 42 with slow colonic transit. Preoperatively there was no significant difference between the two groups in age, sex, PAC-SYM score or FISI score. The PAC-SYM and FISI scores were significantly reduced in both groups at 12months (P<0.001). When comparing the change from baseline of PAC-SYM between patients with and without slow transit constipation, a significant difference was observed (P=0.030) with changes of 58% and 40%. Quality of life (GIQLI and PAC-QOL) was equally improved in both groups. Quality of life improvement was less in patients with right colonic stasis. Slow colonic transit has no adverse impact on function and quality of life after LVR for obstructed defaecation due to high grade internal rectal prolapse.

Does the presence of a high grade internal rectal prolapse affect the outcome of pelvic floor retraining in patients with faecal incontinence or obstructed defaecation?

Pelvic floor retraining is considered first-line treatment for patients with faecal incontinence or obstructed defaecation. There are at present no data on the effect of a high grade internal rectal prolapse on outcomes of pelvic floor retraining. The current study aimed to assess this influence. In all, 120 consecutive patients were offered pelvic floor retraining. The predominant symptom was faecal incontinence in 56 patients (47%) and obstructed defaecation in 64 patients (53%). Patients were assessed before and after therapy using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) score and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). Defaecography and anorectal manometry were performed in all patients before pelvic floor retraining. A high grade internal rectal prolapse was observed in 42 patients (35%). In patients with faecal incontinence without a high grade internal rectal prolapse, the FISI score decreased from 36 to 27 (P < 0.01). The FISI score did not change (32 vs 32; P = 0.93) in patients with a high grade internal rectal prolapse. The PAC-SYM score improved significantly (24 vs 19; P = 0.01) in patients with obstructed defaecation without a high grade rectal prolapse compared with no significant change (26 vs 25; P = 0.21) in patients with a high grade rectal prolapse. Quality of life (GIQLI) improved only in patients without a high grade internal rectal prolapse. Pelvic floor retraining may be useful in patients with defaecation disorders not associated with a high grade internal rectal prolapse. Patients with a high grade internal rectal prolapse may be considered for surgery from the outset.

What are the symptoms of internal rectal prolapse?

Although high-grade internal rectal prolapse is believed to cause functional symptoms such as obstructed defaecation, little has been published on the exact distribution and frequency of symptoms. The aim of this study was to identify the most common symptoms of patients with high-grade internal rectal prolapse. Patients were diagnosed with high-grade prolapse (grade 3 and 4) on proctography using the Oxford Rectal Prolapse Grade. Information from a prospectively collected database was supplemented by a retrospective case note review. Eighty eight patients (94% of them women) were included for analysis. Faecal incontinence (56%) was the most common symptom at presentation. Symptoms related to obstructed defaecation syndrome were the next most common, including incomplete evacuation (45%), straining (34%), digital assistance (34%) and repetitive toilet visits (33%). A variety of symptoms may be caused by high-grade internal rectal prolapse Although symptoms of obstructed defaecation were frequent, urge faecal incontinence was the most common.

What causes chronic idiopathic perineal pain?

Chronic idiopathic perineal pain is poorly understood. Underlying structural abnormalities have been clinically suspected but rarely demonstrated objectively. The condition has been frequently considered to be a psychological disorder. We aimed to evaluate how commonly a structural explanation for such pain symptoms is present. Patients seen in a pelvic floor clinic with severe chronic functional anorectal pain that was classified as chronic idiopathic perineal pain (study group) were prospectively registered in a pelvic floor database and underwent pelvic floor work up (defaecating proctography, anorectal physiology and anal ultrasound +/- rectal examination under anaesthetic). A control group was formed by patients with obstructed defaecation, with or without faecal incontinence, with advanced posterior compartment prolapse. Of 59 patients with chronic idiopathic perineal pain [80% women; mean age 53 (range, 22-84) years], representing 5% of all pelvic floor presentations, 33 (56%) had chronic idiopathic perineal pain alone and 26 (44%) had chronic idiopathic perineal pain with obstructed defaecation. Thirty-five (59%) had an underlying high-grade internal rectal prolapse (73% with chronic idiopathic perineal pain + obstructed defaecation vs 48% with chronic idiopathic perineal pain alone; P < 0.05). Anorectal pain was present in 50% of 543 controls with advanced posterior compartment prolapse. High-grade internal rectal prolapse commonly underlies chronic idiopathic perineal pain, particularly when obstructed defaecation is present. Chronic anorectal pain is a common, under-recognized subsidiary symptom in patients with advanced posterior compartment prolapse presenting primarily with obstructed defaecation or faecal incontinence.

Rectal hyposensitivity is uncommon and unlikely to be the central cause of obstructed defecation in patients with high-grade internal rectal prolapse

There are several causes of obstructed defecation one of which is thought to be internal rectal prolapse. Operations directed at internal prolapse, such as laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, may improve obstructed defecation symptoms significantly. It is not clear whether the obstructed defecation with internal prolapse is a mechanical phenomenon or whether it results changes in rectal sensitivity. This study aimed to evaluate rectal sensory function in patients with obstructed defecation and high-grade internal rectal prolapse. This study represents a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of patients attending a tertiary referral pelvic floor unit. Patients with high-grade (recto-anal) intussusception formed the basis of this study. Rectal sensory function was determined by intrarectal balloon inflation. Three parameters (sensory threshold, urge to defecate and maximum tolerated volumes) were recorded. Abnormal sensitivity was defined as partial (one or two parameters abnormal) or total (all three abnormal). Four hundred and eight patients with high-grade internal rectal prolapse both with and without obstructed defecation symptoms were studied. Two hundred and forty one (59%) had normal sensation. Eighteen (4%) had total hyposensitivity and three (1%) total hypersensitivity. A further 96 (24%) had partial hyposensitivity whilst 50 (12%) had partial hypersensitivity. Neither hypersensitivity nor hyposensitivity differed between patients with and without symptoms of obstructed defecation. Rectal hyposensitivity is relatively uncommon in patients with high-grade internal rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation. Internal rectal prolapse may cause obstructed defecation through a mechanical process. It does not appear that rectal hyposensitivity plays a significant part in the pathological process.