Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy vs. transperineal mesh repair for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele: comparison of selectively distributed patients.

PURPOSE: Obstructed defecation syndrome represents 50-60% of patients with symptoms of constipation. We aimed to compare the two frequently performed surgical methods, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair, for this condition in terms of functional and surgical outcomes. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 131 female patients who were diagnosed with obstructed defecation syndrome, attributed to rectocele with or without rectal intussusception, enterocele, hysterocele or cystocele, and who underwent either laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy or transperineal mesh repair. Patients were evaluated for surgical outcomes based on the operative time, the length of hospital stay, operative complications, using prospectively designed charts. Functional outcome was assessed by using the Initial Measurement of Patient-Reported Pelvic Floor Complaints Tool. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients diagnosed with complex rectocele underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, and 80 patients diagnosed with simple rectocele underwent transperineal mesh repair. Mean age was found to be 50.35 ± 13.51 years, and mean parity 2.14 ± 1.47. Obstructed defecation symptoms significantly improved in both study groups, as measured by the Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory, Constipation Severity Instrument and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms scores. Minor postoperative complications including wound dehiscence (n = 3) and wound infection (n = 2) occurred in the transperineal mesh repair group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy and transperineal mesh repair are efficient and comparable techniques in terms of improvement in constipation symptoms related to obstructed defecation syndrome. A selective distribution of patients with or without multicompartmental prolapse to one of the treatment arms might be the preferred strategy.

Factors affecting operative morbidity and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for presacral tumours: a multicentric cohort study from the Turkish Collaborative Group for Quality Improvement in Colorectal and Pelvic Surgery.

AIM: Data regarding the operative management of presacral tumours present various dilemmas due to their rarity and heterogeneous nature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management strategy, factors associated with operative morbidity and long-term postoperative outcomes in a large group of patients undergoing surgery for presacral tumours. METHOD: This study was designed as a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Records of patients who underwent surgery for presacral tumours at 10 tertiary colorectal centres between 1996 and 2017 were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty seven patients (44 men) with a mean age of 46 years and body mass index of 27 kg/m2 were included. Fifty eight per cent of the patients had low sacral lesions (below S3). The operative approaches were transabdominal (17%), transsacral (65%) and abdominosacral (17%). The postoperative morbidity was 19%. Thirty per cent of the patients had a malignant tumour. Longer duration of symptoms (p = 0.001), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (p = 0.01), abdominosacral operations (p = 0.0001) and presacral tumours located above S3 (p = 0.004) were associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity. Overall long-term postoperative recurrence and mortality were 6% and 5%, respectively, within a 3-year mean follow-up period in patients with presacral malignant tumours. CONCLUSION: Reduced physical condition, omission of symptoms prior to surgery, combined resections and high sacral tumours are the risk factors associated with postoperative complications in patients undergoing surgery for presacral tumours. Meticulous planning of the operation and intensified perioperative care may improve the outcomes in high-risk patients.

New Techniques in Hemorrhoidal Disease but the Same Old Problem: Anal Stenosis.

Anal stenosis, which develops as a result of aggressive excisional hemorrhoidectomy, especially with the stoutly use of advanced technologies (LigaSure®, ultrasonic dissector, laser, etc.), has become common, causing significant deterioration in the patient's quality of life. Although non-surgical treatment is effective for mild anal stenosis, surgical reconstruction is unavoidable for moderate to severe anal stenosis that causes distressing, severe anal pain, and inability to defecate. The problem in anal stenosis, unlike anal fissure, is that the skin does not stretch as a result of chronic fibrosis due to surgery. Therefore, the application of lateral internal sphincterotomy does not provide satisfactory results in the treatment of anal stenosis. Surgical treatment methods are based on the use of flaps of different shapes and sizes to reconstruct the anal caliber and flexibility. This article aims to summarize most-used surgical techniques for anal stenosis regarding functional and surgical outcomes.

Retrorectal tumors: A challenge for the surgeons.

Retrorectal or presacral tumors are rare lesions located in the presacral area and considered as being derived from multiple embryological remnants. These tumors are classified as congenital, neurogenic, osseous, inflammatory, or miscellaneous. The most common among these are congenital benign lesions that present with non-specific symptoms, such as lower back pain and change in bowel habit. Although congenital and developmental tumors occur in younger patients, the median age of presentation is reported to be 45 years. Magnetic resonance imaging plays a crucial role in treatment management through accurate diagnosis of the lesion, the evaluation of invasion to adjacent structures, and the decision of appropriate surgical approach. The usefulness of preoperative biopsy is still debated; currently, it is only indicated for solid or heterogeneous tumors if it will alter the treatment management. Surgical resection with clear margins is considered the optimal treatment; described approaches are transabdominal, perineal, combined abdominoperineal, and minimally invasive. Benign retrorectal tumors have favorable long-term outcomes with a low incidence of recurrence, whereas malignant tumors have a potential for distant organ metastasis in addition to local recurrence.

Urgent and elective proctologic/anorectal interventions in the COVID-19 pandemic: A practical guideline for treatment safety.

BACKGROUND: This article aims to give practical information and concrete suggestions on what should be considered in emergency, semi-urgent and elective settings for common anorectal diseases in the hectic period of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on early results of a series of anorectal interventions. METHODS: Referring to other related guidelines, general considerations specific to the diagnosis and treatment of highly prevalent anorectal diseases were developed to target the correct patients, evaluate and orientate by telemedicine, adapt the Proctology Unit to the new pandemic, and control contamination and infection. Specific considerations for common anorectal diseases were cited, and our initial results were retrospectively documented. RESULTS: From March 1 to April 10, 2020, we contacted 240 patients with anorectal diseases in two centers. We evaluated the results retrospectively on 16-17 April. At the end of this survey, 14 patients (5.8%) were lost for further contact and follow-up. Thirty-one patients (12.9%) were evaluated as nondeferrable cases and invited to the Proctology Unit. Twenty-eight patients required interventions at the same session. Adhering to the principles described here, more than 90 percent of benign anorectal disorders could be treated successfully, with 2.1 percent of suspected contamination and no confirmed cases. None of the Proctology personnel or their close contacts developed COVID-19, either. CONCLUSION: By adhering to the principles outlined in this practical guide, it was possible to treat most of the benign anorectal diseases safely in the initial, hectic period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Preventing the recurrence of acute anorectal abscesses utilizing a loose seton: a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: This pilot study aimed to document our results of treating anorectal abscesses with drainage plus loose seton for possible coexisting high fistulas or drainage plus fistulotomy for low tracts at the same operation. METHODS: Drainage plus fistulotomy were performed only in cases with subcutaneous mucosa, intersphincteric, or apparently low transsphincteric fistula tracts. For all other cases with high transsphincteric fistula or those with questionable sphincter involvement, a loose seton was placed through the tract. Drainage only was carried out in 17 patients. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients underwent drainage plus loose seton. Drainage plus fistulotomy were performed in four cases. None of the patients developed recurrent abscess during a follow-up of 12 months. Not surprisingly, the incontinence scores were similar pre and post-operatively (p=0.564). Only minor complications occurred in 4 cases (14.8 percent). Secondary interventions following loose seton were carried out in 13 patients (48.1 percent). At 12 months, drainage only was followed by 10 recurrences (58.8 percent; p<0.0001, compared with concomitant surgery). CONCLUSION: Concomitant loose seton treatment of high fistula tracts associated with anorectal abscess prevents abscess recurrence without significant complications or disturbance of continence. Concomitant fistulotomy for associated low fistulas also aids in the same clinical outcome. Concomitant fistula treatment with the loose seton may suffice in treating the whole disease process in selected cases. Even in patients with high fistula tracts, the loose seton makes fistula surgery simpler with a mature tract. Abscess recurrence is high after drainage only.

Evaluation of nutritional status in cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the nutritional status of cancer patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) and to assess the possible contributions of nutritional support to patients with malnutrition. METHODS: Prospectively, 207 patients referred to our outpatient radiotherapy department were included. The patients were classified according to tumor site (head/neck, breast, lung, stomach, or colorectal). Nutritional status at the onset, at the end of RT, and 3 and 6 months after irradiation was evaluated with the subjective global assessment (SGA). All of the patients were supported with additional portions of meal or standard enteral feeding formula during and after the irradiation period as long as they were in the moderately or severely malnourished groups, respectively. RESULTS: At the onset, malnutrition was present in 31% of all patients, and it increased to 43% at the end of RT. This difference predominated in head/neck cancer patients. Malnutrition ratios in head/neck cancer patients at the onset and after RT were 24% and 88%, respectively. By a 6-month follow-up, the ratio of patients with malnutrition decreased to 8%. Nutritional status of all groups was found to improve during the 6-month follow-up period, except for the breast cancer group, which included no patients with severe malnutrition at any time. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study may be helpful in planning an appropriate nutritional support for cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy according to the irradiation site.