Preliminary Report From the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium: Large-Scale Data Collection Through Quality Improvement Initiatives to Provide Data on Functional Outcomes After Rectal Prolapse Repair.

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of rectal prolapse is constantly evolving, yet numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses studying operative approaches have failed to make meaningful conclusions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report on preliminary data captured during a large-scale quality improvement initiative to measure and improve function in patients undergoing rectal prolapse repair. DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected surgical quality improvement data. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at 14 tertiary centers specializing in pelvic floor disorders from 2017 to 2019. PATIENTS: A total of 181 consecutive patients undergoing external rectal prolapse repair were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and 3-month postoperative Wexner incontinence score and Altomare obstructed defecation score were measured. RESULTS: The cohort included 112 patients undergoing abdominal surgery (71 suture rectopexy/56% minimally invasive, 41 ventral rectopexy/93% minimally invasive). Those offered perineal approaches (n = 68) were older (median age, 75 vs 62 y; p < 0.01) and had more comorbidities (ASA 3-4: 51% vs 24%; p < 0.01) but also reported higher preintervention rates of fecal incontinence (Wexner 11.4 ± 6.4 vs 8.6 ± 5.8; p < 0.01). Patients undergoing perineal procedures had similar incremental improvements in function after surgery as patients undergoing abdominal repair (change in Wexner, -2.6 ± 6.4 vs -3.1 ± 5.6, p = 0.6; change in Altomare, -2.9 ± 4.6 vs -2.7 ± 4.9, p = 0.8). Similarly, patients undergoing posterior suture rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy had similar incremental improvements in overall scores; however, patients undergoing ventral mesh rectopexy had a higher decrease in the need to use pads after surgery. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective data analysis and 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Functional outcomes improved in all of the patients undergoing prolapse surgery. Larger cohorts are necessary to show superiority among surgical procedures. Quality improvement methods may allow for systematic yet practical acquisition of information and data analysis. We call for the creation of a robust database to benefit this patient population. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B581. REPORTE PRELIMINAR DEL CONSORCIO DE TRASTORNOS DEL PISO PLVICO RECOLECCIN DE DATOS A GRAN ESCALA MEDIANTE INICIATIVAS DE MEJORAMIENTO DE LA CALIDAD PARA PROPORCIONAR INFORMACIN SOBRE LOS RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES: ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento quirúrgico del prolapso rectal está evolucionando constantemente, sin embargo, numerosos estudios clínicos y metaanálisis que evalúan los tratamientos quirúrgicos no han logrado demostrar conclusiones significativas.OBJETIVO:Reportar datos preliminares obtenidos a gran escala durante una iniciativa de mejoramiento de la calidad para medir y mejorar la función en pacientes sometidos a reparación de prolapso rectal.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de datos recolectados prospectivamente de mejoramiento de la calidad quirúrgica.ENTORNO CLINICO:Este estudio se realizó en 14 centros terciarios especializados en trastornos del piso pélvico del 2017 al 2019.PACIENTES:Un total de 181 pacientes consecutivos sometidos a reparación de prolapso rectal externo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Escala de incontinencia de Wexner y de defecación obstruida de Altomare preoperatoria y tres meses postoperatoria.RESULTADOS:El cohorte incluyó 112 pacientes sometidos a cirugía abdominal (71 rectopexia con sutura / 56% minimally invasive, 41 rectopexia ventral / 93% minimally invasive). Aquellos a los que se les realizaron abordajes perineales (n = 68) eran mayores (edad media de 75 vs. 62, p <0,01) y tenían mayorcomorbilidades (ASA 3-4: 51% vs. 24%, p <0,01), además reportaron una mayor tasa de incontinencia fecal previo a la intervención (Wexner 11,4 ± 6,4 vs. 8,6 +/- 5,8, p <0,01). Posterior a la cirugía, los pacientes sometidos a procedimientos perineales tuvieron mejoría progresiva en la función similar que los pacientes sometidos a reparación abdominal (cambio en Wexner -2,6 ± 6,4 vs. -3,1 ± 5,6, p = 0,6; cambio en Altomare -2,9 ± 4,6 vs. -2,7 ± 4,9, p = 0,8). De manera similar, los pacientes con rectopexia posterior con sutura y rectopexia ventral con malla tuvieron mejoría progresiva similares en las escalas generales; no obstante, pacientes con rectopexia ventral con malla tuvieron una mayor disminución en la necesidad de usar paños protectores después de la cirugía.LIMITACIONES:Análisis de datos retrospectivo y seguimiento de tres meses.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados funcionales mejoraron en todos los pacientes sometidos a cirugía de prolapso. Se necesitan cohortes más grandes para demostrar superioridad entre los procedimientos quirúrgicos. Métodos de mejoramiento de la calidad pueden permitir la adquisición sistemática, pero práctica de información y análisis de datos. Hacemos un llamado para la creación de una base de datos sólida para beneficiar a esta población de pacientes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B581. (Traducción- Dr Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Successful sphincter-sparing surgery for all anal fistulas.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the success of a sphincter-sparing treatment algorithm for patients with anal fistulas. METHODS: All patients with anal fistulas presenting to a single surgeon from 1999 to 2004 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were treated according to a sphincter-sparing algorithm that utilized three operative approaches: subcutaneous fistulotomy, seton placement followed by fibrin glue, and/or seton placement followed by rectal advancement flap. Data analyzed included: age, gender, type of fistula, operative intervention, treatment success, and functional results. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients with anal fistulas were evaluated (age range, 23-74 years). Fistula etiology was cryptoglandular in 116 (85 percent), inflammatory bowel disease in 9 (7 percent), HIV in 3 (2 percent), and miscellaneous in 9 (7 percent). A subcutaneous fistulotomy was possible in 38 patients (28 percent), and all of these patients healed. The remaining 99 patients (72 percent) with transsphincteric fistulas underwent staged procedures: 89 patients (65 percent) underwent seton placement followed by fibrin glue closure (55 healed, 62 percent success rate), 9 patients had seton placement followed by flap (9 healed, 100 percent success rate), and 1 patient had seton placement alone. Of the 34 patients with fibrin glue failure, retreatment with glue was successful in 8 of 14 (57 percent success rate). The remaining 20 patients who declined glue retreatment and the 6 patients who failed glue retreatment underwent flap (26 healed, 100 percent success rate). All fistulas healed with an average of two operations per patient, and fecal continence was maintained in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: By using staged operative procedures without any division of anal sphincter muscle, all fistulas healed with excellent functional results. A sphincter-sparing approach can successfully treat all anal fistulas.