Increased Grades of Rectal Intussusception: Role of Decline in Pelvic Floor Integrity and Association With Dyssynergic Defecation.

INTRODUCTION: The natural history of rectal intussusception (RI) is poorly understood. We hypothesized that decline in pelvic floor integrity and function leads to increasing RI grades. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a registry of patients with defecatory disorders with high-resolution anorectal manometry and magnetic resonance defecography was performed. Association of risk factors on increasing RI grades was assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Analysis included a total of 238 women: 90 had no RI, 43 Oxford 1-2, 49 Oxford 3, and 56 Oxford 4-5. Age ( P = 0.017), vaginal delivery ( P = 0.008), and prior pelvic surgery ( P = 0.032) were associated with increased Oxford grades. Obstructive defecation symptoms and dyssynergic defecation were observed at relatively high rates across groups. Increased RI grades were associated with less anal relaxation at simulated defecation yet, higher rates of normal balloon expulsion ( P < 0.05), linked to diminished anal sphincter. Indeed, increased RI grades were associated with worsening fecal incontinence severity, attributed to higher rates of anal hypotension. Levator ani laxity, defined by increased levator hiatus length and its excessive descent at straining, was associated with increasing RI grades, independent of age, history of vaginal delivery, and pelvic surgeries and could independently predict increased RI grades. Concurrent anterior and posterior compartments, and visceral prolapse were associated with higher Oxford grades. DISCUSSION: Our data suggest that decline in pelvic floor integrity with abnormal levator ani laxity is associated with increased RI grades, a process that is independent of age, history of vaginal deliveries, and/or pelvic surgeries, and perhaps related to dyssynergic defecation.

Core Descriptor Sets for Rectal Prolapse Outcomes Research Using a Modified Delphi Consensus.

BACKGROUND: There is wide variation in prolapse care. OBJECTIVE: To determine core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse to enhance outcomes research. DESIGN: Descriptors for patients undergoing rectal prolapse surgery were generated through a systematic review and expert opinion. Stakeholders were recruited internationally via listserv and social media. Experts were encouraged to consider the minimum descriptors that could be considered during clinical care, and descriptors were grouped into core descriptor sets. Consensus was defined as greater than 70% agreement. SETTING: A 3-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on expert results was distributed via survey. The final interactive meeting used a polling platform. PARTICIPANTS: The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium interdisciplinary group convened to advance the clinical care of pelvic floor disorders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To achieve expert consensus for core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse using a modified Delphi method. RESULTS: A total of 206 providers participated, with survey response rates of 82% and 88%, respectively. Responders were from North America (56%), Europe (29%), and Latin America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa (15%). Ninety-one percent of participants identified as colorectal surgeons and 80% reported >5 years of experience (35% reported >15 years). Fifty-seven attendees participated in the final meeting and voted on core descriptor sets. Ninety-three percent of participants agreed that descriptors such as age, BMI, frailty, nutrition, and the American Society of Anesthesiology score correlated to physiologic status. One hundred percent of participants agreed to include baseline bowel function. One hundred percent of participants reported willingness to complete a synoptic operative report. Follow-up intervals 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery (76%) with a collection of recurrence and functional outcomes at those time periods reached an agreement. LIMITATIONS: Individual bias, self-identification of experts, and paucity of knowledge related to rectal prolapse. CONCLUSIONS: This represents the first steps toward international consensus to unify language and data collection processes for rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract . CONJUNTOS DE DESCRIPTORES BSICOS PARA LA INVESTIGACIN DE RESULTADOS DE PROLAPSO RECTAL MEDIANTE UN CONSENSO DELPHI MODIFICADO: ANTECEDENTES:Existe una amplia variación en la atención del prolapso.OBJETIVO:Determinar conjuntos de descriptores básicos para el prolapso rectal para mejorar los resultados de la investigación.DISEÑO:Los descriptores para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de prolapso rectal se generaron a través de una revisión sistemática y la opinión de expertos. Las partes interesadas fueron reclutadas internacionalmente a través de listas de servicio y redes sociales. Se animó a los expertos a considerar los descriptores mínimos que podrían considerarse durante la atención clínica, y los descriptores se agruparon en conjuntos de descriptores básicos. El consenso se definió como > 70% de acuerdo.AJUSTE:Se distribuyó mediante encuesta un proceso Delphi de tres rondas que utiliza una escala Likert de 9 puntos basada en resultados de expertos. La reunión interactiva final utilizó una plataforma de votación.PARTICIPANTES:El grupo interdisciplinario del Consorcio de Trastornos del Suelo Pélvico se reunió para avanzar en la atención clínica de los trastornos del suelo pélvico.MEDIDAS PRINCIPALES DE RESULTADOS:Lograr el consenso de expertos para los conjuntos de descriptores básicos para el prolapso rectal utilizando un método Delphi modificado.RESULTADOS:Participaron 206 proveedores con tasas de respuesta a la encuesta del 82% y 88% respectivamente. Los encuestados procedían de América del Norte (56%), Europa (29%) y América Latina, Asia, Australia, Nueva Zelanda y África (15%). El noventa y uno por ciento se identificó como cirujanos colorrectales y el 80% reportó más de 5 años de experiencia (35% > 15 años). Cincuenta y siete asistentes participaron en la reunión final y votaron sobre conjuntos de descriptores básicos. El noventa y tres por ciento estuvo de acuerdo en que descriptores como edad, índice de masa corporal, fragilidad, nutrición y puntuación de la Sociedad Estadounidense de Anestesiología se correlacionaban con el estado fisiológico. El cien por ciento estuvo de acuerdo en incluir la función intestinal inicial. El 100% refirió disposición para realizar un informe operativo sinóptico. Los intervalos de seguimiento 1,3,5 años después de la cirugía (76%) con un conjunto de recurrencias y los resultados funcionales en esos períodos de tiempo coincidieron.LIMITACIONES:Sesgo individual, autoidentificación de los expertos y escasez de conocimientos relacionados con el prolapso rectal.CONCLUSIONES:Esto representa los primeros pasos hacia un consenso internacional para unificar el lenguaje y los procesos de recolección de datos para el prolapso rectal. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Identifying Current Barriers in Patient Educational Content Surrounding Rectal Prolapse and Rectocele: Using Animation to Bridge the Gaps.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered educational resources surrounding rectal prolapse and rectocele can be difficult to locate and understand. Findings of video animation as patient-specific material for these conditions can help guide creation of effective educational tools for patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify female patient preferences for learning about rectal prolapse and rectocele and to obtain feedback on an animation developed to aid patient education on these conditions. DESIGN: This was a multiple methods study. Participants received a 20-question survey about educational preferences and a 100-second video animation on rectal prolapse and rectocele. Respondents were invited for a semi-structured interview to further express their thoughts regarding health education. SETTING: This study was conducted from 2022 - 2023, surveys were administered via e-mail and interviews were held virtually. PATIENTS: Female patients in the institutional review board-approved Stanford Rectal Prolapse Registry were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assess and describe the ability of short video animations to supplement patient education on rectal prolapse and rectocele. RESULTS: 46 female participants responded and 10 were interviewed. About 97% of participants indicated the video animation explained the condition clearly, and 66% felt comfortable explaining the condition. Feedback suggested showing the animation during the first appointment and creating similar content for surgery preparation. Patient challenges while researching rectal prolapse and rectocele online included difficulty finding content (41.5%), complex language (18.8%) and uncertainty about source reliability (16.9%). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size with little socioeconomic diversity and highly educated participants. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered resources surrounding specific pelvic floor disorder(s) are not always readily accessible online. This study demonstrated the value of a short video animation to enhance patients' understanding of rectal prolapse and rectocele. See Video.

Durable Approaches to Recurrent Rectal Prolapse Repair May Require Avoidance of Index Procedure.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse is associated with unique technical challenges, partially determined by the surgical approach used for the index operation. Success rates are variable, and data to determine the best approach in patients with recurring prolapse are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess current surgical approaches to patients with prior rectal prolapse repairs and to compare short-term outcomes of de novo and redo procedures, including recurrence of rectal prolapse. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospective database. SETTINGS: The Multicenter Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Prospective Quality Improvement database. De-identified surgeons at more than 25 sites (81% high volume) self-reported patient demographics, prior repairs, symptoms of incontinence and obstructed defecation, and operative details, including history of concomitant repairs and prior prolapse repairs. PATIENTS: Patients who were offered surgery for full thickness rectal prolapse. INTERVENTIONS: Incidence and type of repair used for prior rectal prolapse surgery were recorded. Primary and secondary outcomes of index and redo operations were calculated. Patients undergoing rectal prolapse re-repair (redo) were compared with patients undergoing first (de novo) rectal prolapse repair. The incidence of rectal prolapse recurrence in de novo and redo operations was quantified. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of rectal prolapse recurrence in de novo and redo settings. RESULTS: Eighty-nine (19.3%) of 461 patients underwent redo rectal prolapse repair. On short-term follow-up, redo patients had prolapse recurrence rates similar to those undergoing de novo repair. However, patients undergoing redo procedures rarely had the same operation as their index procedure. LIMITATIONS: Self-reported, de-identified data. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that recurrent rectal prolapse surgery is feasible and can offer adequate rates of rectal prolapse durability in the short term but may argue for a change in surgical approach for redo procedures when clinically feasible. See Video Abstract . LOS ENFOQUES DURADEROS PARA LA REPARACIN DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL RECURRENTE PUEDEN REQUERIR EVITAR EL PROCEDIMIENTO NDICE: ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento quirúrgico del prolapso rectal recurrente se asocia con desafíos técnicos únicos, determinados en parte por el abordaje quirúrgico utilizado para la operación inicial. Las tasas de éxito son variables y faltan datos para determinar el mejor abordaje en pacientes con prolapso recurrente.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los enfoques quirúrgicos actuales para pacientes con reparaciones previas de prolapso rectal y comparar los resultados a corto plazo de los procedimientos de novo y rehacer, incluida la recurrencia del prolapso rectal.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos prospectiva.AJUSTE:Base de datos de mejora prospectiva de la calidad del Consorcio multicéntrico de trastornos del suelo pélvico. Cirujanos no identificados en más de 25 sitios (81% de alto volumen) informaron datos demográficos de los pacientes, reparaciones previas, síntomas de incontinencia y defecación obstruida y detalles operativos, incluido el historial de reparaciones concomitantes y reparaciones previas de prolapso.INTERVENCIONES:Se registro la incidencia y el tipo de reparación utilizada para la cirugía de prolapso rectal previa. Se calcularon los resultados primarios y secundarios de las operaciones de índice y reoperacion. Se compararon los pacientes sometidos a una nueva reparación (reoperacion) de prolapso rectal con pacientes sometidos a una primera reparación (de novo) de prolapso rectal. Se cuantificó la incidencia de recurrencia del prolapso rectal en operaciones de novo y rehacer.RESULTADOS:El resultado primario de recurrencia del prolapso rectal en entornos de novo y redo. Ochenta y nueve (19,3%) de 461 pacientes se sometieron a una nueva reparación del prolapso rectal. En el seguimiento a corto plazo, los pacientes reoperados tuvieron tasas de recurrencia de prolapso similares a los de los sometidos a reparación de novo. Sin embargo, los pacientes sometidos a procedimientos de rehacer rara vez tuvieron la misma operación que su procedimiento índice.LIMITACIONES:Datos no identificados y autoinformados.CONCLUSIONES/DISCUSIÓN:Nuestros resultados sugieren que la cirugía de prolapso rectal recurrente es factible y puede ofrecer tasas adecuadas de durabilidad del prolapso rectal en el corto plazo, pero puede abogar por un cambio en el enfoque quirúrgico para rehacer los procedimientos cuando sea clínicamente factible. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Development of a Consensus Derived Synoptic Operative Report for Rectal Prolapse: A Report From the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Narrative operative reports may frequently omit or obscure data from an operation. OBJECTIVE: We aim to develop a synoptic operative report for rectal prolapse that includes core descriptors as developed by an international consensus of expert pelvic floor surgeons. DESIGN: Descriptors for patients undergoing rectal prolapse surgery were generated through review. Members of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium were recruited to participate in a 3 round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale. Descriptors that achieved 70% agreement were kept from the first round, descriptors scoring 40-70% agreement were recirculated in subsequent rounds. A final list of operative descriptors was determined at a consensus meeting, with a final consensus meeting more than 70% agreement. SETTINGS: This was a survey administered to members of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptors meeting greater than 70% agreement were selected. RESULTS: One-hundred seventy six surgeons representing colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, and urologists distributed throughout North America (56%), Latin America (4%), Western Europe (29%), Asia (4%), and Africa (1%) participated in the first round of Delphi voting. After two additional rounds and a final consensus meeting, 16 of 30 descriptors met 70% consensus. Descriptors that met consensus were: surgery type, posterior dissection, ventral dissection, mesh used, type of mesh used, mesh location, sutures used, suture type, pouch of Douglas and peritoneum reclosed, length of rectum imbricated, length of bowel resected, levatoroplasty, simultaneous vaginal procedure, simultaneous gynecologic procedure, simultaneous enterocele repair, and simultaneous urinary incontinence procedure. LIMITATIONS: Survey represents views of members of the Delphi panel, and may not represent viewpoints of all surgeons. CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: This Delphi survey establishes international consensus descriptors for intraoperative variables that have been used to produce a synoptic operative report. This will help establish defined operative reporting to improve clinical communication, quality measures, and clinical research. See Video Abstract.

Using AI and computer vision to analyze technical proficiency in robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative skills assessment is time-consuming and subjective; an efficient and objective computer vision-based approach for feedback is desired. In this work, we aim to design and validate an interpretable automated method to evaluate technical proficiency using colorectal robotic surgery videos with artificial intelligence. METHODS: 92 curated clips of peritoneal closure were characterized by both board-certified surgeons and a computer vision AI algorithm to compare the measures of surgical skill. For human ratings, six surgeons graded clips according to the GEARS assessment tool; for AI assessment, deep learning computer vision algorithms for surgical tool detection and tracking were developed and implemented. RESULTS: For the GEARS category of efficiency, we observe a positive correlation between human expert ratings of technical efficiency and AI-determined total tool movement (r = - 0.72). Additionally, we show that more proficient surgeons perform closure with significantly less tool movement compared to less proficient surgeons (p < 0.001). For the GEARS category of bimanual dexterity, a positive correlation between expert ratings of bimanual dexterity and the AI model's calculated measure of bimanual movement based on simultaneous tool movement (r = 0.48) was also observed. On average, we also find that higher skill clips have significantly more simultaneous movement in both hands compared to lower skill clips (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, measurements of technical proficiency extracted from AI algorithms are shown to correlate with those given by expert surgeons. Although we target measurements of efficiency and bimanual dexterity, this work suggests that artificial intelligence through computer vision holds promise for efficiently standardizing grading of surgical technique, which may help in surgical skills training.

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion. METHODS: We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis. RESULTS: The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy. CONCLUSION: Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.

Does Concomitant Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair at the Time of Rectopexy Impact Rectal Prolapse Recurrence Rates? A Retrospective Review of the Prospectively Collected Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Quality Improvement Database Pilot.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse is reported in 30% of women presenting with rectal prolapse. Combined repair is a viable option to avoid the need for future pelvic floor interventions. However, the added impact of adding a modicum of middle compartment suspension by closing the pouch of Douglas during a rectal prolapse repair has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess the impact of middle compartment suspension on the durability of rectal prolapse repair. We also aimed to determine whether adding some form of pouch of Douglas closure to achieve middle compartment suspension leads to any improvements in the rates or severity of postoperative constipation or in the rates or severity of postoperative fecal incontinence. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective analysis of a multicenter prospective database. SETTING: Data were analyzed from the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Quality Improvement in Rectal Prolapse Surgery database. Deidentified surgeons at more than 20 sites (75% academic, 81% high volume) self-reported patient demographics, previous repairs, symptoms of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation, and operative details, including addition of concomitant gynecologic repairs, use of mesh, posterior or ventral dissection, and sigmoidectomy. PATIENTS: Patients were included who underwent abdominal repair for rectal prolapse. INTERVENTIONS: Abdominal rectopexy procedures with and without middle compartment suspension were compared. Middle compartment suspension was defined as excision and closure of the pouch of Douglas with some degree of colpopexy or culdoplasty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of prolapse recurrence and secondary outcomes of incontinence and constipation were calculated via univariate and multivariable regression by comparing those who underwent rectopexy with and without middle compartment suspension. RESULTS: Of the 198 patients (98% female, age 60.2 ± 15.6 years) who underwent abdominal repairs (59% robotic), 138 patients (70%) underwent some concomitant middle compartment suspension. Patients who had an added middle compartment suspension seemed to have lower early rectal prolapse recurrences. On multivariable regression to control for age, previous repairs, and the use of mesh, addition of some form of pouch of Douglas repair was associated with a decrease in short-term recurrences. LIMITATIONS: Our data need to be interpreted cautiously. Future studies are critically needed to further explore this observation, with an a priori, prospective definition of middle compartment suspension, validated measurement of concomitant pathology, and longer follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that some middle compartment suspension at the time of rectal prolapse repair may improve short-term durability of rectal prolapse repair. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C30 . LA REPARACIN CONCOMITANTE DEL PROLAPSO DE RGANOS PLVICOS EN EL MOMENTO DE LA RECTOPEXIA AFECTA LAS TASAS DE RECURRENCIA DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL UNA REVISIN RETROSPECTIVA DE UNA BASE DE DATOS RECOPILADA PROSPECTIVAMENTE DEL CONSORCIO SOBRE LA MEJORA DE LA CALIDAD DE TRASTORNOS DEL PISO PLVICO: ANTECEDENTES:El prolapso de órganos pélvicos se informa en el 30 % de las mujeres que presentan prolapso rectal y la reparación combinada es una opción viable para evitar la necesidad de futuras intervenciones del suelo pélvico. Sin embargo, no se ha estudiado el impacto adicional de agregar un mínimo de suspensión del compartimento medio cerrando el fonde de saco de Douglas durante una reparación de prolapso rectal.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar el impacto de la suspensión del compartimento medio con respecto a la durabilidad de la reparación del prolapso rectal. Quisimos de igual manera determinar si el agregado de algún tipo de cierre del fondo de saco de Douglas para lograr la suspensión del compartimento medio conduce a alguna mejora en las tasas o la gravedad del estreñimiento posoperatorio así como en las tasas o la gravedad de la incontinencia fecal posoperatoria.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos prospectiva.ESCENARIO:Base de datos Multicenter Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Prospective Quality Improvement. Cirujanos no identificados en >20 sitios (75% académicos, 81% de alto volumen) datos demográficos de pacientes auto informados, reparaciones previas, síntomas de incontinencia fecal y defecación obstruida, y detalles quirúrgicos, incluida la suma de reparaciones ginecológicas concomitantes, uso de malla, disección anterior o posterior y sigmoidectomía.INTERVENCIONES:Se compararon los procedimientos de rectopexia abdominal con y sin suspensión del compartimento medio). La suspensión del compartimento medio se definió como la escisión y cierre del fondo de saco de Douglas con algún grado de colpopexia o culdoplastia.RESULTADOS:El resultado principal de la recurrencia del prolapso y los resultados secundarios de incontinencia y estreñimiento se calcularon mediante regresión uni y multivariable al comparar los que fueron sometidos a rectopexia con y sin suspensión del compartimento medio.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a reparación abdominal por prolapso rectal.RESULTADOS:De los 198 pacientes (98% mujeres, edad 60,2 ± 15,6 años) sometidas a reparaciones abdominales (59% robótica), 138 (70%) fueron sometidas igualmente y de manera concomitante a alguna suspensión del compartimento medio. Los pacientes a los que se les añadió una suspensión del compartimento medio parecían tener menores recurrencias tempranas del prolapso rectal y, en la regresión multivariable para controlar la edad, las reparaciones previas y el uso de malla, la adición de alguna forma de reparación del fondo de saco de Douglas se asoció con una disminución de las recurrencias a corto plazo.LIMITACIONES:Nuestros datos deben interpretarse con cautela. Se necesitan de manera critica, estudios futuros para explorar más a fondo esta observación, con una definición prospectiva a priori de la suspensión del compartimento medio, una medición validada de la patología concomitante y un seguimiento más prolongado.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestros resultados sugieren que alguna suspensión del compartimento medio en el momento de la reparación del prolapso rectal puede mejorar la durabilidad a corto plazo de la reparación del prolapso rectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C30 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Anorectal manometry for the diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders in patients with hypermobility spectrum disorders and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) including impaired rectal evacuation are common in patients with Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder (HSD) or Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS). The effect of connective tissue pathologies on pelvic floor function in HSD/hEDS remains unclear. We aimed to compare clinical characteristics and anorectal pressure profile in patients with HSD/hEDS to those of age and sex matched controls. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all FGID patients who underwent high resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) and balloon expulsion test (BET) for evaluation of impaired rectal evacuation. Patients with HSD/hEDS were age and sex matched to a randomly selected cohort of control patients without HSD/hEDS. An abnormal BET was defined as the inability to expel a rectal balloon within 2 minutes. Wilcoxon rank sum test and Fisher's exact test were used to make comparisons and logistic regression model for predictive factors for abnormal evacuation. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients (72 with HSD/hEDS and 72 controls) were analyzed. HSD/hEDS patients were more likely to be Caucasian (p < 0.001) and nulliparous. Concurrent psychiatric disorders; depression, and anxiety (p < 0.05), and somatic syndromes; fibromyalgia, migraine and sleep disorders (p < 0.001) were more common in these patients. Rate of abnormal BET were comparable among the groups. HDS/hEDS patients had significantly less anal relaxation and higher residual anal pressures during simulated defecation, resulting in significantly more negative rectoanal pressure gradient. The remaining anorectal pressure profile and sensory levels were comparable between the groups. While diminished rectoanal pressure gradient was the determinant of abnormal balloon evacuation in non HSD/hEDS patients, increased anal resting tone and maximum volume tolerated were independent factors associated with an abnormal BET in HSD/hEDS patients. Review of defecography data from a subset of patients showed no significant differences in structural pathologies between HSD/hEDS and non HSD/hEDS patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest anorectal pressure profile is not compromised by connective tissue pathologies in HSD patients. Whether concurrent psychosomatic disorders or musculoskeletal involvement impact the pelvic floor function in these patients needs further investigation.

Rectal Prolapse: Age-Related Differences in Clinical Presentation and What Bothers Women Most.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse has a diverse symptom profile that affects patients of all ages. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify bothersome symptoms and clinical presentation that motivated patients who have rectal prolapse to seek care, characterize differences in symptom severity with age, and determine factors associated with bothersome symptoms. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained registry. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary referral academic center. PATIENTS: Included were 129 consecutive women with full-thickness rectal prolapse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes measured were primary bothersome symptoms, 5-item Cleveland Clinic/Wexner Fecal Incontinence questionnaire, and the 5-item Obstructed Defecation Syndrome questionnaire. Patients were categorized by age <65 vs age ≥65 years. RESULTS: Cleveland Clinic/Wexner Fecal Incontinence score >9 was more common in older patients (87% vs 60%, p = 0.002). Obstructed Defecation Syndrome score >8 was more common in younger patients (57% vs 28%, p < 0.001). Older patients were more likely than younger patients to report bothersome symptoms of pain (38% vs 19%, p = 0.021) and bleeding (12% vs 2%, p = 0.046). Mucus discharge was reported by most patients (older, 72% vs younger, 66%, p = 0.54) but was bothersome for only 18%, regardless of age. Older patients had more severe prolapse expression than younger patients (at rest, 33% vs 11%; during activity, 26% vs 19%; only with defecation, 40% vs 64%, p = 0.006). Older patients were more likely to seek care within 6 months of prolapse onset (29% vs 11%, p = 0.056). On multivariable regression, increasing age, narcotic use, and nonprotracting prolapse at rest were associated with reporting pain as a primary concern. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study with a small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal prolapse-related bothersome symptoms and health care utilization differ by age. Although rectal pain is often not commonly associated with prolapse, it bothers many women and motivates older women to undergo evaluation. Patient-reported functional questionnaires may not reflect patients' primary concerns regarding specific symptoms and could benefit from supplementation with questionnaires to elicit individualized symptom priorities. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B492. PROLAPSO DE RECTO: INFLUENCIA DE LA EDAD EN DIFERENCIAS VINCULADAS CON LA PRESENTACIÓN CLÍNICA Y LOS SÍNTOMAS MAS DESAGRADABLES: El prolapso de recto tiene una gran variedad de síntomas que afectan a pacientes con edades diferentes.Identificar los síntomas mas molestos y la presentación clínica que motivaron a los pacientes con un prolapso de recto a consultar por atención médica, caracterizar las diferencias de gravedad de los síntomas con relación a la edad y determinar los factores asociados con los síntomas mas molestos.Análisis retrospectivo de un registro prospectivo.Centro académico de referencia terciaria.Consecutivamente 129 mujeres que presentaban un prolapso rectal completo.Síntomas y molestias primarias, cuestionario de incontinencia fecal de la Cleveland Clinic / Wexner de 5 ítems, cuestionario de síndrome de defecación obstruida de 5 ítems. Los pacientes fueron categorizados en < 65 años versus ≥ 65 años.El puntaje de incontinencia fecal de la Cleveland Clinic / Wexner > 9 fue más común en pacientes mayores (87% vs 60%, p = 0.002). La puntuación del síndrome de defecación obstructiva > 8 fue más común en pacientes más jóvenes (57% vs 28%, p <0,001). Los pacientes mayores fueron más propensos que los pacientes jóvenes a informar síntomas y molestias de dolor (38% vs 19%, p = 0.021) y sangrado (12% vs 2%, p = 0.046). La mayoría de los pacientes informaron secresión de moco (mayores, 72% frente a más jóvenes, 66%, p = 0,54), pero sólo el 18% tuvo molestias, independientemente de la edad. Los pacientes mayores tenían una exteriorización de prolapso más grave que los pacientes jóvenes (en reposo, 33% frente a 11%; durante la actividad, 26% frente a 19%; solo con defecación, 40% frente a 64%, p = 0,006). Los pacientes mayores tenían más probabilidades de buscar atención médica dentro de los 6 meses posteriores al inicio del prolapso (29% frente a 11%, p = 0.056). Tras la regresión multivariable, el aumento de la edad, el uso de narcóticos y el prolapso no prolongado en reposo se asociaron con la notificación de dolor como queja principal.Centro único; tamaño de muestra pequeño.Los síntomas y molestias relacionadas con el prolapso rectal y la solicitud de atención médica difieren según la edad. Aunque el dolor rectal a menudo no se asocia comúnmente con el prolapso, incomoda a muchas pacientes y motiva a las mujeres mayores a someterse a un examen médico. Los cuestionarios funcionales con las respuestas de las pacientes pueden no reflejar las preocupaciones principales de éstos con respecto a los síntomas específicos y podrían requerir cuestionarios complementarios para así obtener prioridades individualizadas con relación a los síntomas identificados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B492. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Does the Length of the Prolapsed Rectum Impact Outcome of Surgical Repair?

BACKGROUND: There are many surgical options for the treatment of rectal prolapse with varying recurrence rates reported. The association between rectal prolapse length and recurrence risk has not been explored previously. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether length of prolapse predicts a risk of recurrence. DESIGN: Consecutive patients from a prospectively collected institutional review board-approved data registry were evaluated. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Colorectal Surgery. PATIENTS: All patients from 2010 to 2018 who underwent surgical intervention for rectal prolapse were included. INTERVENTION: Perineal repair with Delorme procedure and Altemeier, as well as abdominal repair with ventral rectopexy, resection rectopexy, and posterior rectopexy, was included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prolapse length, recurrence, type of surgery, and primary or secondary procedure were measured. RESULTS: In total, 280 patients had prolapse surgery over 8 years, mean age was 59 years (SD = 18 y), and 92.4% were female. Seventy percent had a prolapse length documented as <5 cm, and 30% had prolapse length documented as >5 cm. The mean prolapse length was 4.8 cm (SD = 2.9 cm). The overall rate of recurrent prolapse was 18%. There were 51 patients who had a recurrent prolapse after their first prolapse surgery. Factors significant for recurrence on univariate analysis were a perineal approach (p = 0.03), previous Delorme procedure (p < 0.001), and prolapse length >5 cm (p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis there was significantly increased recurrence with length of prolapse >5 cm (OR = 2.2 (95% CI, 1.1-4.4); p = 0.02) and having a previous Delorme procedure (OR = 4.0 (95% CI, 1.6-10.1); p = 0.004). For each 1-cm increase in prolapse, the odds of recurrence increased by a factor of 2.2. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study of a heterogenous patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The greater the length of prolapsed rectum, the greater the risk of recurrence. The length of prolapse should be considered when planning the most appropriate surgical repair to modify the recurrence risk. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B463. EL TAMAÑO DEL RECTO PROLAPSADO AFECTA EL RESULTADO DE LA REPARACIÓN QUIRÚRGICA?: Existen muchas opciones quirúrgicas para el tratamiento del prolapso de recto con diferentes tasas de recurrencia publicadas. La asociación entre el tamaño del prolapso rectal y el riesgo de recurrencia no se han explorado previamente.Determinar si el largo en el tamaño del prolapso predice un riesgo de recidiva.Se evaluaron pacientes consecutivos de un registro de datos aprobado por el IRB recopilado prospectivamente.Departamento de cirugía colorrectal de la Clínica Cleveland, en Ohio.Todos aquellos pacientes que entre 2010 y 2018 se sometieron a una intervención quirúrgica por prolapso completo de recto.La reparación perineal incluyó los procedimientos de Altemeier y Delorme. Las reparaciones abdominales incluidas fueron la rectopexia ventral, la rectopexia con resección y la rectopexia posterior.Tamaño del prolapso, recurrencia, tipo de intervención quirúrgica y tipo de procedimiento (primario o secundario).En total, 280 pacientes se sometieron a cirugía de prolapso rectal durante 8 años, la edad media fue de 59 años (DE 18) donde el 92,4% eran mujeres. El 70% tenían un tamaño de prolapso documentado como < 5 cm y 30% tenían un tamaño de prolapso documentada como > 5 cm. La longitud media del prolapso fue de 4,8 cm (DE 2,9).La tasa general de recidiva del prolapso fue de 18%. Hubo 51 pacientes que presentaron recidiva del prolapso después de una primera cirugía. Los factores significativos para la recidiva en el análisis univariado fueron el abordaje perineal (p = 0.03), un procedimiento de Delorme previo (p <0.001) y el tamaño del prolapso > 5 cm (p = 0.04). En el análisis multivariado, hubo un aumento significativo de la recidiva en aquellos prolapsos de > 5 cm (OR 2,2; IC del 95%: 1,09-4,4; p = 0,02) con un procedimiento de Delorme previo (OR 4; IC del 95%: 1,6 a 10,1; p = 0,004). Por cada centímetro de tamaño del prolapso, las probabilidades de recidiva aumentaron en un factor de 2,2.Estudio retrospectivo de una cohorte de pacientes heterogénea.Cuanto mayor es el tamaño del recto prolapsado, mayor es el riesgo de recidiva. Se debe evaluar muy cuidadosamente el tamaño de los prolapsos para escoger la corrección quirúrgica más apropiada y así disminuir el riesgo de recidivas.Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B463. (Traducción-Dr Xavier Delgadillo).

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).

Consensus Definitions and Interpretation Templates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Defecatory Pelvic Floor Disorders: Proceedings of the Consensus Meeting of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the Society of Abdominal Radiology, the International Continence Society, the American Urogynecologic Society, the International Urogynecological Association, and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium (PFDC) is a multidisciplinary organization of colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, urologists, gynecologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, physiotherapists, and other advanced care practitioners. Specialists from these fields are all dedicated to the diagnosis and management of patients with pelvic floor conditions, but they approach, evaluate, and treat such patients with their own unique perspectives given the differences in their respective training. The PFDC was formed to bridge gaps and enable collaboration between these specialties. The goal of the PFDC is to develop and evaluate educational programs, create clinical guidelines and algorithms, and promote high quality of care in this unique patient population. The recommendations included in this article represent the work of the PFDC Working Group on Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pelvic Floor Disorders (members listed alphabetically in Table 1). The objective was to generate inclusive, rather than prescriptive, guidance for all practitioners, irrespective of discipline, involved in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pelvic floor disorders.

Postoperative complications and recurrence rates after rectal prolapse surgery versus combined rectal prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our primary objectives were to compare < 30-day postoperative complications and RP recurrence rates after RP-only surgery and combined surgery. Our secondary objectives were to determine preoperative predictors of < 30-day complications and RP recurrence. METHODS: A prospective IRB-approved cohort study was performed at a single tertiary care center from 2017 to 2020. Female patients with symptomatic RP underwent either RP-only surgery or combined surgery based on the discretion of the colorectal and FPMRS surgeons. Primary outcome measures were < 30-day complications separated into Clavien-Dindo (CD) classes and rectal prolapse on physical examination. RESULTS: Seventy women had RP-only surgery and 45 had combined surgery with a mean follow-up time of 208 days. Sixty-eight percent underwent abdominal RP repair, and 32% underwent perineal RP repair. Twenty percent had one or more complications, 14% in the RP-only group and 29% in the combined surgery group (p = 0.06). On multivariate analysis, combined surgery patients had a 30% increased risk of complications compared to RP-only surgery patients (RR = 1.3). Most of these complications were minor (14/17, 82.4%) and categorized as CD I or II, including urinary retention and UTI. Twelve percent of this cohort had RP recurrence, 11% in the RP-only group and 13% in the combined surgery group (p = 0.76). Preoperative risk factors for RP recurrence included a primary complaint of rectal bleeding (RR 5.5) and reporting stools consistent with Bristol Stool Scale of 1 (RR 2.1). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing combined RP + POP surgery had a higher risk of complications and equivalent RP recurrence rates compared to patients undergoing RP-only surgery.

A Collaborative Approach to Multicompartment Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse is common yet frequently underreported and unrecognized. Although not life-threatening, the impact on quality of life and daily functioning can be significant. Multidisciplinary evaluation and treatment with specialists in colorectal and female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) help to identify patients who will benefit from surgical treatment of vaginal and rectal prolapse. Both abdominal and perineal combined procedures can be offered to patients with a single operation and concurrent recovery period without increasing complications.

Approaching Combined Rectal and Vaginal Prolapse.

Combined rectal prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse surgery provides significant quality-of-life benefits with improvements in bothersome symptoms of pain, bulge, constipation, urinary retention, as well as bowel and bladder incontinence. Robotic surgery is the ideal tool for a combined surgical repair. It allows enhanced suturing in the deep pelvis, three-dimensional (3D) visualization of the presacral space and easy mobilization of the rectum and dissection of the vagina. Combined procedures can be offered to patients with the advantages of a single operation and concurrent recovery period without increasing complications. In this article, we highlight our approach to combined prolapse repair.

Surgical approach, complications, and reoperation rates of combined rectal and pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to determine rectal prolapse (RP) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) reoperation rates and postoperative < 30-day complications after combined RP and POP surgery at a single institution. METHODS: This was an IRB-approved retrospective cohort study of all female patients who received combined RP and POP surgery at a single tertiary care center from 2008 to 2019. Recurrence was defined as the need for subsequent repeat RP or POP surgery at any point after the index surgery. Surgical complications were separated into Clavien-Dindo classes. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were identified, and 18.3% (12/63) had < 30-day complications (55% Clavien-Dindo grade 1; 27% Clavien-Dindo grade 2; 18% Clavien-Dindo grade 4). Of patients undergoing combined abdominal RP and POP repair, no postoperative < 30-day complications were noted in the MIS group compared to 37.5% of those patients in the laparotomy group (p < 0.01). Overall, in those patients who underwent combined RP and POP surgery, the need for subsequent RP surgery for recurrent RP was 14% and the need for subsequent POP surgery for recurrent POP was 4.8% (p = 0.25). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of women undergoing combined RP and POP surgery, a higher proportion required subsequent RP surgery compared to those requiring subsequent POP surgery, although this was not statistically significant. Almost one-fifth of patients undergoing combined RP and POP surgery experienced a < 30-day surgical complication, regardless of whether the approach was perineal or abdominal. For those patients undergoing abdominal repair, < 30-day complications were more likely in those patients who had a laparotomy compared to those who had a minimally invasive surgery.

Should we offer ventral rectopexy to patients with recurrent external rectal prolapse?

BACKGROUND: For patients with rectal prolapse undergoing Ventral Rectopexy (VR), the impact of prior prolapse surgery on prolapse recurrence is not well described. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare recurrence rates after VR in patients undergoing primary and repeat rectal prolapse repairs. DESIGN: This study is a prospective cohort study. METHODS: IRB-approved prospective data registry of consecutive patients undergoing VR for full-thickness external rectal prolapse between 2009 and 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rectal prolapse recurrence was defined as either external prolapse through the anal sphincters or symptomatic rectal mucosa prolapse warranting additional surgery. Preoperative and postoperative morbidity and functional outcomes were analyzed. Actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 108 VRs were performed during the study period. Seventy-two were primary and 36 repeat repairs. Seven cases were open, 23 laparoscopic, and 78 robotic. Six cases were converted from laparoscopic/robotic to open. In 63 patients, VR was combined with gynecological procedures. There were no statistical differences between primary or recurrent prolapse for the following: demographics, operative time, concomitant gynecologic procedures, complications, blood loss, and graft material type. Length of stay was longer in patients with a history of prior prolapse surgery (p = 0.01). Prolapse recurrence rates for primary repairs were reported at 1.4, 6.9, and 9.7% and for recurrent prolapse procedures 13.9, 25, and 25% at 1, 3, and 5 years (p = 0.13). Mean length of follow-up was similar between groups. Time to recurrence was significantly shorter in patients undergoing repeat prolapse surgery 8.8 vs 30.7 months (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: VR is a better option for patients undergoing primary rectal prolapse repair.

Outcomes of Sacral Neurostimulation Lead Reimplantation for Fecal Incontinence: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events and complications have been reported after sacral neurostimulation for fecal incontinence, which may result in surgical revision and device explantation. Lead reimplantation may be feasible; however, available data regarding outcomes are less robust. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of sacral neurostimulation lead reimplantation for fecal incontinence. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at 2 clinical sites from a single institution. PATIENTS: Patients with fecal incontinence who underwent sacral neurostimulation implantation or reimplantation between 2011 and 2014 were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Sacral neurostimulation reimplantation was the included intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score (0 best; 20 worst) in reimplantation as compared with index implantation controls was the main measure. Secondary outcomes included the frequency and type of adverse events and complications. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients underwent either sacral neurostimulation implantation or reimplantation between 2011 and 2014. Ninety-seven patients underwent an index percutaneous nerve stimulation trial, 93 of whom also underwent a stimulator implantation. Fifteen patients underwent lead reimplantation, with 5 performed before stimulator implantation and 10 after stimulator implantation. The index implanted and reimplanted groups had similar demographics, comorbidities, and complication profiles including explantation rates. The most common reason for reimplantation was lead related (6/15), including 4 lead migrations, 1 lead fracture, and 1 lead erosion. Significant decreases in the incontinence score were achieved in each group (index implantation: p < 0.001; reimplantation: p = 0.006). When comparing the efficacy of sacral neurostimulation therapy in decreasing the fecal incontinence score from baseline in each group, patients with an index implantation were found to have a more significant improvement in their incontinence score as compared with the reimplantation group (p = 0.047). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study. A large number of patients with incomplete functional assessment data were excluded from analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The improvements in fecal incontinence are significantly better after index implantation than after reimplantation.