Which surgical approach for rectocele? A multicentric report from Italian coloproctologists

Via Laura Ciceri Visconti 14, I-20137 Milan, Italy.
Techniques in Coloproctology (Impact Factor: 2.04). 12/2001; 5(3):149-56. DOI: 10.1007/s101510100017
Source: PubMed


The most effective surgical technique for rectocele has not yet been clearly established. A retrospective multicentric study was carried out to compare the long-term results of 3 endorectal techniques (Block, Sarles and stapled) and the perineal levatorplasty, alone and in association, in a series of patients with symptomatic rectocele. From January 1992 to December 1999, 2212 patients with defecation disorders were referred to 5 Italian coloproctology units. An anterior rectocele was clinically diagnosed in 1045 patients and confirmed with defecography. On the basis of clinical and radiological parameters, 317 patients (312 women; mean age, 52.4+/-20.1 years) were selected for surgery. Group 1 consisted of 141 patients (136 women; mean age, 50.4+/-18.8 years) who were submitted to endorectal operations. Group 2 consisted of 126 women (mean age, 52.5+/-19.7 years) who received perineal levatorplasty. Finally, 50 women (mean age, 54.3+/-21.9 years) in Group 3 received endorectal operations associated with perineal levatorplasty. A total of 269 patients were followed postoperatively (mean period, 24.2+/-3.1 months, 27.5+/-5.4 months and, 22.8+/-2.8 months, respectively) with the same questionnaire and clinical examination. Three months after surgery, a defecography examination and anorectal manometry were performed in 136 and 132 patients, respectively. Operative time, hospital stay and time to return to work were significantly higher in Group 3 (p<0.001). There was one death in Group 3 due to severe sepsis. Main postoperative complications were: in Group 1, hemorrhage (7.8%, all Sarles), dehiscence of the endorectal suture (5.0%, all Block), distal rectal stenosis (2.1%, 1 stapled, 2 block), and rectovaginal fistula (1.4%, all Sarles); in Group 2, delayed healing of the perineal wound (16.4%); in Group 3 delayed healing of the perineal wound (22.0%), hemorrhage (6%, all Sarles), dehiscence (4.0%), stenosis (2.0%). 17.3% of patients of Group 2 and 22.5% of Group 3 complained of dyspareunia. Postoperative defecography showed a complete absence of the rectocele in 44.1% of patients and reduction of size in the others, without significant differences among the three groups. Manometric pattern was not significantly modified by surgery. Significant symptoms recurred in 5.9% of the patients in Group 1, 6.4% in Group 2, and 5.0% in Group 3. Perineal levatorplasty did not significantly improve obstructed defecation, as it did not allow to excise the rectal mucosal prolapse, and was followed by an high incidence of delayed healing of the perineal wound and dyspareunia. Sarles procedure achieved better control of mucosal prolapse but carried a higher complication rate compared to the others. The association of the perineal levatorplasty with an endorectal technique required significantly longer operative time, and led to a longer hospital stay and time to return to work. In conclusion, the investigated techniques showed different patterns of postoperative complications: bleeding after Sarles, dehiscence after Block, dyspareunia after perineoplasty and fatal gangrene after stapled, but non of them showed a clear superiority over the others in term of clinical or functional results 2 years after surgery.

17 Reads
  • Source
    • "Delorme operation is used in the past for the treatment of hidden rectal prolapsed22 and stapled transanal rectal resection was introduced as a new technology for the management of obstructive defecation syndrome.10,21 STARR is becoming increasingly popular for the treatment of this syndrome.1,21 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Pathophysiology and treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) remains to be defined clearly. Rectal hidden intussusceptions and voluminous hemorrhoids may be the cause. Where conservative treatment is not effective, ODS can be treated by STARR or Delorme operation. In some patients treatment of advance hemorrhoidal disease may resolve the syndrome. Methods: 81 females out of 183 ODS patients were selected for the treatment by Delorme, STARR or 30 mAmp electrotherapy. Results: The number of patients treated by STARR, Delorme and Electrotherapy were 34, 31 and 16, with mean postoperative pain ranking of 2.5, 3.7 and 1.5 and mean hospital stay of 2.3, and 3.2 and 1 day respectively. Mean ODS score, preoperatively compared with one-year post operation, improved from 14.5 to 5.1 (P=0.005) in STARR, 13.8 to 4.3 (P=0.006) in Delorme and 14.2 to 12.8 (P=0.725) in electrotherapy groups. The mean severity score (SS) changed from 14.2, 15.18 and 13.90 preoperatively to 3.8, 4.12 and 11.34 postoperatively in all groups respectively. The mean resting pressures decreased from 82 to 65 in STARR (P=0.006), from 87 to 63 in Delorme (P=0.005) and from 79 to 74 mmHg (P=0.797) in electrotherapy groups. Postoperative defecography showed significant reduction in the intussusception parameter in STARR and Delorme (82.4% and 88% respectively; P<0.0001), but unchanged in electrotherapy group. Conclusion: STARR and Delorme are effective modalities for the treatment of patients with ODS, while STARR is simpler, less invasive and less painful. Although, electrotherapy eradicates the voluminous hemorrhoids but is ineffective in the treatment of ODS.
    Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences 09/2014; 39(5):440-5.
  • Source
    • "In general, iatrogenic or iatrogenic-traumatic rectovaginal fistulas can also result from other procedures at the ventral rectum (tumor resection [37], [38], rectocele repair [39], anal sphincter reconstruction), in sacrocolpopexy [40], and procedures at the dorsal vagina (posterior colporraphy) through injury of the respective other organ with inadequate treatment or postoperative suture dehiscence. Few related publications exist. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Rectovaginal fistulas are rare, and the majority is of traumatic origin. The most common causes are obstetric trauma, local infection, and rectal surgery. This guideline does not cover rectovaginal fistulas that are caused by chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken. Results: Rectovaginal fistula is diagnosed on the basis of the patient history and the clinical examination. Other pathologies should be ruled out by endoscopy, endosonography or tomography. The assessment of sphincter function is valuable for surgical planning (potential simultaneous sphincter reconstruction). Persistent rectovaginal fistulas generally require surgical treatment. Various surgical procedures have been described. The most common procedure involves a transrectal approach with endorectal suture. The transperineal approach is primarily used in case of simultaneous sphincter reconstruction. In recurrent fistulas. Closure can be achieved by the interposition of autologous tissue (Martius flap, gracilis muscle) or biologically degradable materials. In higher fistulas, abdominal approaches are used as well. Stoma creation is more frequently required in rectovaginal fistulas than in anal fistulas. The decision regarding stoma creation should be primarily based on the extent of the local defect and the resulting burden on the patient. Conclusion: In this clinical S3-Guideline, instructions for diagnosis and treatment of rectovaginal fistulas are described for the first time in Germany. Given the low evidence level, this guideline is to be considered of descriptive character only. Recommendations for diagnostics and treatment are primarily based the clinical experience of the guideline group and cannot be fully supported by the literature.
    German medical science : GMS e-journal 10/2012; 10:Doc15. DOI:10.3205/000166
  • Source
    • "Few papers have assessed the surgical results prospectively by collecting physiological data to compare the transvaginal with the transanal rectocele repair [12, 13]. Gynecologists traditionally adopt a vaginal approach, excising part of the posterior vaginal wall with or without an anterior levatorplasty. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study was aimed to compare the results of a transanal repair with those of a transvaginal levatorplasty and to determine the long-term clinical outcomes according to the change in the depth of the rectocele after the procedure. Of 50 women who underwent a rectocele repair from March 2005 to February 2007, 26 women (group A) received a transanal repair, and 24 (group B) received a transvaginal repair with or without levatorplasty. At 12 months after the procedures, 45 (group A/B, 22/23 women) among the 50 women completed physiologic studies, including anal manometry and defecography, and clinical-outcome measurements. The variations of the clinical outcomes with changes in the depth of the rectocele were also evaluated in 42 women (group A/B, 20/22) at the median follow-up of 50 months. On the defecographic findings, the postoperative depth of the rectocele decreased significantly in both groups (group A vs. B, 1.91 ± 0.20 vs. 2.25 ± 0.46, P = 0.040). At 12 months after surgery, 17 women in each group (group A/B, 77/75%) reported improvement of their symptoms. However, only 11 and 13 women (group A/B, 55/59%) of groups A and B, respectively, maintained their improvement at the median follow-up of 50 months. Better results were reported in patients with a greater change in the depth of their rectocele (≥4 cm) after the procedure (P = 0.001) In both procedures, clinical outcomes might become progressively worse as the length of the follow-up is increased.
    Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 06/2012; 28(3):140-4. DOI:10.3393/jksc.2012.28.3.140
Show more