Stapled trans-anal rectal resection (STARR) in the surgical treatment of the obstructed defecation syndrome: results of STARR Italian Registry.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stapled trans-anal rectal resection (STARR) in the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome ODS by the analysis of the data collected in the STARR Italian Registry (SIR) with a special emphasis on the analysis of symptoms and quality of life. METHODS: Collected data included, preoperative tests findings, and the evaluation of symptoms; the latter was obtained by using dedicated tools such as the Obstructed Defecation Syndrome Score (ODS-S), the Severity Symptom Score (SSS), and the Continence Grading Scale (CGS). Data on the quality of life were collected by Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QoL) and the Euro Quality of Life-5 Domains Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-5D VAS). The evaluation of the symptoms and the quality of life was repeated 6 and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: The SIR had collected data on 2171 patients (1653 females, 76.1%; mean age 56.2 years; range 20-96 years). A significant improvement (P < .0001) was seen between preoperative and 12-month follow-up in all scores: ODS-S (16.7 vs. 5.0), SSS (15.6 vs. 2.6), CGS (2.0 vs. 0.7), PAC-QoL (51.0 vs. 22.1), and EQ-5D VAS (57.5 vs. 85.7). Complications included defecatory urgency (4.5% at 12 months), bleeding (3.6%), perineal sepsis (3.4%), and one case of rectovaginal fistula (0.05%). CONCLUSION: The analysis of SIR data seems to confirm that STARR is a safe and effective procedure in the treatment of ODS. However, further studies are required to evaluate the long-term stability of results.

Sacral nerve stimulation for constipation: do we still miss something? Role of psychological evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to try to understand if psychological evaluation of patients candidate to sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) could be a potential selection criterion to identify those patients who could successfully respond to this treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2007, 68 patients with slow transit constipation were identified, and all of them fulfill the selection criteria for the SNS treatment. The MMPI-2 test was purposed to all the patients. Wexner score, bowel movements, and SF36 were recorded in all the patients. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (33.8%) refused the psychological evaluation. Forty-five patients completed the test: only 13 patients (19.1%) had a score in the normal range of the scales of the MMPI-2 and were implanted with the temporary test for SNS. After the screening period, 11 patients (84.6%) reported more than 50% improvement of bowel movements per week and no need of laxatives, so they were definitively implanted. The mean follow-up period was 22 months (range 12-36). The mean number of bowel movements per week and Wexner score were significantly improved after 1 year (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A complete and accurate psychological evaluation could be very important in the selection of the patients with STC that could benefit from SNS.

Laparoscopic correction of enterocele associated to stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We report our experience of concomitant laparoscopic treatment for enterocele and stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) for rectocele and/or rectal prolapse in patients with complex obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2005 to June 2007, we submitted 20 patients with ODS due to rectal prolapse and/or rectocele, combined with stable enterocele, to STARR and laparoscopic correction of the enterocele. Preoperative assessment included symptom evaluation with standardized questionnaires, clinical examination, colonoscopy, proctoscopy, anal sphincter ultrasonography, video-defecography with synchronous opacification of the ileal loops in all patients and colpography in female patients, and anorectal manometry. Follow-up was performed in the first, third, sixth, 12th, and 24th month after surgery. RESULTS: Eighteen (90%) patients were submitted to both procedures, simultaneously. One patient, previously submitted to STARR, underwent laparoscopic treatment of the enterocele. Postoperative complications occurred in two (10%) patients: one case of postoperative rectal bleeding and one case of retropneumoperitoneum. Median (range) preoperative and postoperative Altomare's obstructed defecation score was ten (6-14) and two (0-14), respectively (p<0.001). Median (range) preoperative and postoperative quality of life score was 79 (39-109) and 109 (50-126), respectively (p<0.001). No symptom related to ODS was detected at 6-month follow-up (19 patients) and at 24-month follow-up (19 patients). CONCLUSION: The combination of STARR and laparoscopy provides a safe and effective method to treat ODS caused by rectal internal prolapse and/or rectocele combined with enterocele.

Outcomes of stapled transanal rectal resection vs. biofeedback for the treatment of outlet obstruction associated with rectal intussusception and rectocele: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess the safety and outcomes achieved with stapled transanal rectal resection vs. biofeedback training in obstructed defecation patients. METHODS: A total of 119 women patients who suffered from obstructed defecation with associated rectocele and rectal intussusception were randomized to stapled transanal rectal resection or biofeedback training. Stapled transanal rectal resection was performed by using two circular staplers to produce transanal full-thickness rectal resection. Primary outcome was symptoms of obstructed defecation resolution at 12 months; secondary outcomes included safety, change in quality of life score, and anatomic correction of rectocele and rectal intussusception. RESULTS: Fourteen percent (8/59) stapled transanal rectal resection and 50 percent (30/60) biofeedback training patients withdrew early. Eight (15 percent) patients treated with stapled transanal rectal resection and 1 (2 percent) biofeedback patient experienced adverse events. One serious adverse event (bleeding) occurred after stapled transanal rectal resection. Scores of obstructed defecation improved significantly in both groups as did quality of life (both P < 0.0001). Successful treatment was observed in 44 (81.5 percent) stapled transanal rectal resection vs. 13 (33.3 percent) evaluable biofeedback training patients (P < 0.0001). Functional benefit was observed early and remained stable during the study. CONCLUSIONS: In this controlled trial, stapled transanal rectal resection was well tolerated, was more effective than biofeedback training for the resolution of obstructed defecation symptoms, and improved quality of life, with minimal risk of impaired continence. Thus, stapled transanal rectal resection offers a new treatment alternative for obstructed defecation after failure of conservative measures including biofeedback training, a noninvasive approach.

Stapled transanal rectal resection for outlet obstruction: a prospective, multicenter trial.

PURPOSE: This prospective, multicenter trial was designed to assess the safety and effectiveness of a novel technique in the treatment of outlet obstruction caused by the combination of intussusception and rectocele by using a double-transanal, 33-mm circular stapler. METHODS: From January to October 2001, 90 patients with outlet obstruction were operated on and followed (mean, 16.3 +/- 2.9 months) by the validated Constipation Scoring and Continence Grading Systems, clinical examination, defecography, and anorectal manometry. Anal ultrasound also was performed in 58 multiparous patients. RESULTS: Operative time and hospital stay were short (mean, 43.3 +/- 8.7 minutes and 2.1 +/- 0.8 days, respectively), and postoperative pain was minimal. The mean time to resume normal activity was 10.2 +/- 4.5 days. Complications were 17.8 percent fecal urgency, 8.9 percent incontinence to flatus, 5.5 percent urinary retention, 4.4 percent bleeding, 3.3 percent anastomotic stenosis, and 1.1 percent pneumonia. All constipation symptoms significantly improved (P < 0.001) without worsening of anal continence. No patient complained of dyspareunia. At postoperative defecography, all patients had a double incisure of the lower rectal outline in the site of anastomosis, with the disappearance of both intussusception and rectocele. Anal pressure was not significantly modified, whereas rectal compliance was restored (P < 0.05). No lesions of anal sphincters caused by the operation were found in multiparous patients. The outcome at one year was excellent in 48 of 90 patients, good in 33, fairly good in 5, and poor in 4. CONCLUSIONS: This novel technique seems to be safe and effective in the treatment of outlet obstruction caused by the combination of intussusception and rectocele. Randomized trials are required to confirm these findings.