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, partly determined by the surgical approach utilized for the index operation. Success rates are variable and data to determine the best approach in patients with recurring prolapse are lacking. OBJECTIVE: 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. SETTING: The Multicenter Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Prospective Quality Improvement database. Deidentified 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. 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 to 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. CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: 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.

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).

Collagen fistula plug for the treatment of anal fistulas.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of the Surgisis (Anal Fistula Plug) in multiple patients at our institution and present early clinical results along with notable clinical observations from our experience. METHODS: This was a prospective analysis of all patients who received the Anal Fistula Plug for treatment of anorectal fistulas between April 2006 and February 2007. All tracts were irrigated with peroxide, the plug was inserted in the tract, and buried at the internal opening with 2-0 vicryl and mucosal advancement flap. Statistical analysis was performed with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were treated with the Anal Fistula Plug and one patient was lost to follow-up. There were 27 males and 17 females with average age of 44.1 years treated for simple (n = 24) or complex (n = 20) fistulas. Preliminary results indicated an 84 percent healing rate by 3 to 8 weeks postoperatively, which progressively declined from 72.7 percent at 8 weeks to 62.4 percent at 12 weeks and 54.6 percent at a median follow-up of 6.5 (range, 3-13) months. Long-term Anal Fistula Plug closure rate was significantly higher in patients with simple than complex fistulas (70.8 vs. 35 percent; P < 0.02) and with non-Crohn's disease vs. Crohn's disease (66.7 vs. 26.6 percent; P < 0.02). Patients with two successive plug placements had significantly lower closure rates than patients who underwent placement of the plug once (12.5 vs. 63.9 percent; P < 0.02). No significant difference in closure rates were found between patients with one vs. multiple fistula tracts. Postoperative complications included perianal abscess in five patients (3 Crohn's disease, 2 non-Crohn's disease). CONCLUSIONS: Anal Fistula Plug is most successful in the treatment of simple anorectal fistulas but is associated with a high failure rate in complex fistula and particularly in patients with Crohn's disease. Repeat plug placement is associated with increased failure. Given the relatively low morbidity associated with the procedure, Anal Fistula Plug should be considered as a first-line treatment for patients with simple fistulas and as an alternative in selected patients with complex fistulas.

One-stage laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: an alternative to the conventional approach?

PURPOSE: There is significant concern in the current literature over the safety of laparoscopic techniques in removal of the entire colon and rectum. The purpose of this study was to examine the results of a one-stage laparoscopic-assisted restorative proctocolectomy in patients with mucosal ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis in a single institution experience. METHODS: All patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted one-stage restorative proctocolectomy (29 mucosal ulcerative colitis; 3 familial adenomatous polyposis) over a 24-month period were followed up prospectively for short-term and long-term complications and functional outcome. RESULTS: There were 32 patients (17 males), with a median age of 32 years (range, 16-29 years). There were no conversions to open surgery. There were two intraoperative complications, an inconsequential rectal perforation during mobilization and one staple line misfire. There were 11 postoperative complications: 3 obstruction/ileus, 2 pouchitis, 2 wound infections, 2 strictures, 1 pelvic abscess, and 1 pouch leak (at the top of the "J"). Three patients required reoperation (1 temporary ileostomy, 1 lysis of adhesions, and 1 transpouch drainage). The median number of bowel movements was seven per day (range, 2-15). CONCLUSION: A one-stage laparoscopic-assisted restorative proctocolectomy can be performed effectively and safely. Given that techniques in laparoscopic large-bowel surgery are still evolving rapidly, the role of this operation in the surgical treatment of patients with mucosal ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis is likely to expand in the near future.