Evaluating the risk factors for the development of benign disorders of defaecation: a surgical perspective.

PURPOSE: There remains uncertainty as to which risk factors are important for the development of defaecatory problems as a result of heterogeneity of published evidence. Understanding the impact of risk factors may be important in selecting targets for disease prevention or reversal. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate risk factors for faecal incontinence and chronic constipation. METHODS: Risk factors for chronic constipation and faecal incontinence were long-listed from scientific literature, then anonymously evaluated (by 50 predominantly colorectal surgical experts from the UK Pelvic Floor Society) using a Delphi technique. Each risk factor was rated as independent, a co-factor, or not a risk factor. Independent risk factors were rated between 1 (not important) and 10 (critically important) with mean (± standard deviation) calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-eight risk factors for chronic constipation were evaluated. Eighteen were classed as independent and 16 as co-factors. Opioid analgesia (7.87 ± 2.05), eating disorders (7.80 ± 1.72), and history of abuse (7.70 ± 1.89) were scored as most important independent risk factors. Female sex (6.60 ± 2.02) was considered an independent risk factor but increasing age was rated a co-factor. Thirty-three risk factors for faecal incontinence were evaluated. Twenty were classed as independent and eight as co-factors. Third- or fourth-degree tear (8.88 ± 1.57), instrumental delivery (8.47 ± 1.58), and grand multiparity (8.00 ± 1.63) were rated most important. Increasing age (7.41 ± 2.14) and female sex (7.58 ± 2.05) were both considered independent risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Several risk factors for chronic constipation and faecal incontinence were selected by Delphi approach. These factors will feed forward into Bayesian models of disease prediction that combine data and expert knowledge.

Stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in patients with defecatory disorders secondary to internal rectal prolapse is poorly evidenced. A UK-based multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed to determine the clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls at medium-term follow-up. METHODS: The randomized controlled trial was conducted from March 1, 2015 TO January 31, 2019. A stepped-wedge RCT design permitted observer-masked data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR (controls) with those who had undergone surgery. Adult participants with radiologically confirmed IRP refractory to conservative treatment were randomized to three arms with different delays before surgery. Efficacy outcome data were collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 weeks). Clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls was defined as ≥ 1.0-point reduction in Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life and/or Symptoms (PAC-QOL and/or PAC-SYM) scores at 24 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included 14-day diary data, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), St Marks incontinence score, the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), the chronic constipation Behavioral Response to Illness Questionnaire (CC-BRQ), and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ). RESULTS: Of a calculated sample size of 114, only 28 patients (100% female) were randomized from 6 institutions (due mainly to national pause on mesh-related surgery). Nine were assigned to the T0 arm, 10 to T12, and 9 to T24. There were no substantial differences in baseline characteristics between the three arms. Compared to baseline, significant reduction (improvement) in PAC-QOL and PAC-SYM scores were observed at 24 weeks post-surgery (- 1.09 [95% CI - 1.76, - 0.41], p = 0.0019, and - 0.92 [- 1.52, - 0.32], p = 0.0029, respectively) in the 19 patients available for analysis (9 were excluded for dropout [n = 2] or missing primary outcome [n = 7]). There was a clinically significant long-term reduction in PAC-QOL scores (- 1.38 [- 2.94, 0.19], p = 0.0840 at 72 weeks). Statistically significant improvements in PAC-SYM scores persisted to 72 weeks (- 1.51 [- 2.87, - 0.16], p = 0.0289). Compared to baseline, no differences were found in secondary outcomes, except for significant improvements at 24 and 48 weeks on CC-BRQ avoidance behavior (- 14.3 [95% CI - 23.3, - 5.4], and - 0.92 [- 1.52, - 0.32], respectively), CC-BRQ safety behavior (- 13.7 [95% CI - 20.5, - 7.0], and - 13.0 [- 19.8, - 6.1], respectively), and BIPQ negative perceptions (- 16.3 [95% CI - 23.5, - 9.0], and - 10.5 [- 17.9, - 3.2], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: With the caveat of under-powering due to poor recruitment, the study presents the first randomized trial evidence of short-term benefit of LVMR for internal rectal prolapse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN11747152).

Epidemiological trends in surgery for rectal prolapse in England 2001-2012: an adult hospital population-based study.

AIM: To analyse trends in admission and surgery for rectal prolapse in adults in England between 2001 and 2012 as well as prolapse reoperation rates. METHOD: Analysis of data derived from a comparative longitudinal population-based cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 25 238 adults, of median age 73 [interquartile range (IQR: 58-83] years, underwent a total of 29 379 operations for rectal prolapse (mean: 2662 per annum). The female to male ratio of this group of patients was 7:1. Median length of hospital stay was 3 (IQR: 1-7) days with an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 0.9%. Total number of admissions (4950 in 2001/2002 vs 8927 in 2011/2012) and of patients undergoing prolapse surgery (2230 in 2001/2002 vs 2808 in 2011/2012) significantly increased over the study period (P < 0.001 for trends). The overall increase in prolapse surgery (of 33% overall and of 44% for elective procedures) was dwarfed by an increase in popularity of laparoscopic surgery (of 15-fold). Overall prolapse reoperation rate was 12.7%. The lowest recurrence rate was observed for elective open resection (9.1%) but this had the highest mortality (1.9%). Laparoscopic and perineal fixations were also associated with low reoperation rates (< 11%) and the lowest mortality rates, of 0.3%, when these procedures were elective. These data refute a trend towards subspecialization (by surgeon or hospital) during the study period. CONCLUSION: Admissions for rectal prolapse increased in England between 2001 and 2012, together with increases in rectal prolapse surgery. Surgical decision making has changed over this period and may be reflected in outcome.

Botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of dyssynergic defaecation in adults: a systematic review.

AIM: Dyssynergic defaecation (DD) is characterized by inappropriate coordination of the pelvic floor muscles during defaecation, resulting in impaired stool expulsion. The mainstay of treatment is biofeedback and alternative therapies are limited in those who do not respond. This systematic review evaluated botulinum toxin type A injection (BTXA) as a treatment option for dyssynergia. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies evaluating adult patients with DD treated with BTXA injection into the puborectalis and/or external anal sphincter. All study designs, except case reports, were included in the review with no language restriction. Studies limited to patients with specific neurological diagnoses or with a follow-up period under 1 month were excluded. Study selection, assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers and results were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Eleven studies (three randomized control trials) involving 248 participants were included. All studies used the transanal approach to deliver the injection, most commonly at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions using digital palpation for guidance. The most commonly used patient position was left lateral, and most studies did not use any anaesthesia. The dose of BTXA varied (Botox 12-100 units, Dysport 100-500 units), and outcomes measured were heterogeneous (global rating ± up to five investigations). Symptomatic improvement varied between 29.2% and 100% and adverse effects occurred in 0% to 70%. CONCLUSION: The evidence to support using BTXA for DD is poor and only covers a transanal approach. Future studies should redress these limitations: heterogeneity of design, dose and outcome measures.

Position statement by the Pelvic Floor Society on behalf of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland on the use of mesh in ventral mesh rectopexy.

The following position statement forms part of a response to the current concerns regarding use of mesh to perform rectal prolapse surgery. It highlights the actions being pursued by the Pelvic Floor Society (TPFS) regarding clinical governance in relation to ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The following are summary recommendations. Available evidence suggests that mesh morbidity for VMR is far lower than that seen in transvaginal procedures (the main subject of current concern) and lower than that observed following other abdomino-pelvic procedures for urogenital prolapse, e.g. laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. VMR should be performed by adequately trained surgeons who work within a multidisciplinary team (MDT) framework. Within this, it is mandatory to discuss all patients considered for surgery at an MDT meeting. Clinical outcomes of surgery and any complications resulting from surgery should be recorded in the TPFS-hosted national database (registry) available for this purpose; in addition, all patients should be considered for entry into ongoing and planned UK/European randomized studies where this is feasible. A move towards accreditation of UK units performing VMR will improve performance and outcomes in the long term. An enhanced programme of training including staged porcine, cadaveric and preceptorship sessions will ensure the competence of surgeons undertaking VMR. Enhanced consent forms and patient information booklets are being developed, and these will help both surgeons and patients. There is weak observational evidence that technical aspects of the procedure can be optimized to reduce morbidity rates. Suture material choice may contribute towards morbidity. The available evidence is insufficient to support the use of one mesh over another (biologic vs synthetic); however, the use of polyester mesh is associated with increased morbidity.

Non-randomized studies should be considered for assessing surgical techniques in rectal prolapse: prospective cohort study.

AIM: Randomized trials comparing surgical techniques for rectal prolapse are not always feasible. We assessed whether non-randomized comparisons of those who have had surgery with those still waiting would be confounding baseline health status. METHOD: This was a prospective cohort study in seven UK hospitals. Participants were ≥ 18 years and listed for surgical interventions of equivalent intensity for rectal prolapse. They were defined as short or long waiters (≤ 18 or > 18 weeks, respectively). Time on the waiting list was compared with baseline comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index) and change from baseline in health status (EQ-5D-5L) at the time of surgery. RESULTS: In all, 203 patients were analysed. Median (interquartile range) waiting time was 13.7 weeks (8.1, 20.4) varying across sites. Baseline comorbidity was not an important predictor of waiting time. Median Charlson comorbidity index was 2 (0, 3) for short and 1 (0, 3) for long waiters. A change in waiting time by a week was associated with negligible improvement in the EQ-5D-5L index of 0.001 (95% CI -0.000 to 0.003, P = 0.106). CONCLUSION: Negligible change in patient reported health status while on the waiting list and lack of effect of comorbidities in influencing waiting time support the use of non-randomized pre-/post-studies to compare the effects of surgical interventions for rectal prolapse.

Initial experience with SphinKeeper™ intersphincteric implants for faecal incontinence in the UK: a two-centre retrospective clinical audit.

AIM: The SphinKeeper™ artificial bowel sphincter implant is a relatively new surgical technique for the treatment of refractory faecal incontinence. This study presents the first experience in two UK tertiary centres. METHOD: This is a retrospective audit of prospectively collected clinical data in relation to technique, safety, feasibility and short-term effectiveness from patients undergoing surgery from January 2016 to April 2019. Baseline data, intra-operative and postoperative complications, symptoms [using St Mark's incontinence score (SMIS)] and radiological outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients [18 women, median age 57 years (range 27-87)] underwent SphinKeeper. In 30% of the patients, the firing device jammed and not all prostheses were delivered. There were no intra-operative complications and all patients were discharged the same or the following day. SMIS significantly improved from baseline [median -6 points (range -12 to +3); P < 0.00016] with 14/27 (51.9%) patients achieving a 50% reduction in the SMIS score. On postoperative imaging, a median of seven prostheses (range 0-10) were identified with a median of five (range 0-10) optimally placed. There was no relationship between number of well-sited prostheses on postoperative imaging and categorical success based on 50% reduction in SMIS (χ2 test, P = 0.79). CONCLUSION: SphinKeeper appears to be a safe procedure for faecal incontinence. Overall, about 50% patients achieved a meaningful improvement in symptoms. However, clinical benefit was unrelated to the rate of misplaced/migrated implants. This has implications for confidence in proof of mechanism and also the need for technical refinement.

Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations: Results I: Colonic resection.

AIM: To assess the outcomes of colectomy in adults with chronic constipation (CC). METHOD: Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCiTY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements (SES) with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level. RESULTS: Forty articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 2045 patients. Evidence was derived almost exclusively from observational studies, the majority of which concerned colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (CIRA) rather than other procedural variations. Average length of stay (LOS) ranged between 7-15 days. Although inconsistent, laparoscopic surgery may be associated with longer mean operating times (210 vs 167 min) and modest decreases in LOS (10-8 days). Complications occurred in approximately 24% of patients. Six (0.4%) procedure-related deaths were observed. Recurrent episodes of small bowel obstruction occurred in about 15% (95%CI: 10-21%) of patients in the long-term, with significant burden of re-hospitalisation and frequent recourse to surgery. Most patients reported a satisfactory or good outcome after colectomy but negative long-term functional outcomes persist in a minority of patients. The influence of resection extent, anastomotic configuration and method of access on complication rates remains uncertain. Available evidence weakly supports selection of patients with an isolated slow-transit phenotype. CONCLUSION: Colectomy for CC may benefit some patients but at the cost of substantial short- and long-term morbidity. Current evidence is insufficient to guide patient or procedural selection.

Use of the Harmonic scalpel for Delorme's procedure.

AIM: There are many surgical techniques that deal with external rectal prolapse but perineal procedures have the advantage of reduced invasiveness. Therefore, despite concerns regarding high recurrence rates, the technique is still used by many surgeons. METHOD: This manuscript and video describe our early clinical experience using the Harmonic scalpel in 11 consecutive patients who underwent a Delorme's procedure for external rectal prolapse. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 76 (range: 30-94) years. There were no intra-operative complications, and the median operative time was 78 min. Intra-operative blood loss was minimal (mean 45 ml; range 20-70 ml). Median length of stay was 2 (range: 0-8) days. Overall morbidity and recurrence were both 18%, with a median follow-up of 15 (range: 1-23) months. Nine patients were operated on by a senior trainee with consultant supervision. CONCLUSION: The advantages of this device are mainly those of ease of mucosal dissection, minimal blood loss and shorter operative time in comparison with published series.

Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations: Results IV: Recto-vaginal reinforcement procedures.

AIM: To assess the outcomes of recto-vaginal reinforcement procedures in adults with chronic constipation. METHOD: Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCiTY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level. RESULTS: Forty-three articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 3346 patients. Average length of procedures ranged between 20 and 169 min, and length of stay between 1 and 15 days. Complications typically occurred after 7-17% of procedures (range 0-61%). Post-operative bleeding was uncommon (0-4%) as well as haematoma or sepsis (0-2%). Fistulation did not occur in most studies. Two procedure-related deaths were observed for 3209 patients. Although inconsistent, 78% of patients reported a satisfactory or good outcome, with 30-50% experiencing reduced symptoms of straining, incomplete emptying or reduced vaginal digitation. About 17% of patients developed anatomical recurrence. Considering measures of harm and global satisfaction rating scales, there was insufficient evidence to prefer one type of procedure over another. There was no evidence to support better outcomes based on selection of patients with a particular size or grade of rectocoele. CONCLUSION: Evidence supporting recto-vaginal reinforcement procedures is currently derived from observational studies and comparisons, with only one high quality study. Large trials are needed to inform future clinical decision making.