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).

Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome in 102 patients: Do different phenotypes make sense?

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the pathophysiological mechanisms of solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS). AIMS: We aim to identify the different phenotypes, taking into account complaints, anatomy and anorectal physiology. METHODS: Complaints, endoscopy results, and physiology data of patients with histologically proven SRUS were collected and analysed. The associated anorectal diseases were faecal incontinence and obstructed defecation. The clinical aspects of SRUS were compared, and factors associated with anorectal diseases were identified. RESULTS: Overall, 102 consecutive patients were included. The predominant lesion was a rectal ulcer (66%), and inflammation of the rectal wall was present in 42% of patients. Abnormal rectal capacities and/or rectal perception was observed in more than half. Nearly half (52%) of the patients met the criteria for obstructed defecation and they tended to more frequently have psychiatric disease (66.7% vs 33.3%; p=0.07). Patients with faecal incontinence (17%) reported more self-perception of anal procidentia (p=0.01) and were more likely to have inflammation of the rectal wall (p=0.02), high-grade internal rectal procidentia (p=0.06) and anal hypotonia (p=0.004); their maximum tolerable volume was lower (p=0.004). CONCLUSION: The characteristics of patients with SRUS suggest different phenotypes. This may be a way to develop a comprehensive treatment strategy.

Rectal Prolapse After Laparoscopically Assisted Anorectoplasty for Anorectal Malformations.

Aim: To clarify the characteristics of patients with rectal prolapse after laparoscopically assisted anorectoplasty (LAARP), estimate the causes, and evaluate its impact on postoperative bowel function. Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent LAARP for high- or intermediate-type anorectal malformation between 2000 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical data were compared between patients with (Group P) and without prolapse (normal, Group N). Fecal continence was evaluated using the clinical assessment score for fecal continence developed by the Japanese Study Group of Anorectal Anomalies. For patients who underwent pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before LAARP, atrophy, or asymmetry of the anal sphincter and levator ani was evaluated by a radiologist. Results: Of the 49 patients, 29 (59%) had rectal prolapse after LAARP (Group P) and 20 did not (Group N). We found no significant difference in gender, type of malformations, incidence of associated spinal or lumbosacral anomalies, procedure time, and postoperative bowel function at ages 4, 8, 12, and 16 years. However, LAARP was performed significantly earlier in Group N (median [range], 180 [123-498] days) than in Group P (210 [141-570] days). In Group P, 18 patients (62%) developed prolapse before colostomy takedown. Eight of 26 patients who underwent surgical prolapse repair required redo procedures. Twenty-five patients who underwent preoperative pelvic MRI showed no significant relationship between the muscular abnormalities and the incidence of postoperative rectal prolapse. Conclusions: Although recurrence is common, performing LAARP at a younger age might prevent postoperative prolapse development.

Surgical Management of Rectal Prolapse in Infants and Children.

The surgical management of children with rectal prolapse is wide ranging and without consensus within the pediatric surgical community. While the majority of rectal prolapse in infants and children resolves spontaneously or with the medical management of constipation, a small but significant subset of patients may require intervention for persistent symptoms. In this review, we discuss the etiology and pathophysiology of rectal prolapse in both infants and children, options for medical management, described interventions and surgical options and their outcomes, and future avenues for research and investigation.

Colorectal Surgery Review for Primary Care Providers.

Colon and rectal disorders can be functional and inflammatory. This is the second paper of a three-part series14 and will focus on the diagnosis and treatment of rectal prolapse, fecal incontinence and inflammatory bowel disease.

Long-term Anatomical and Functional Results of Robot-Assisted Pelvic Floor Surgery for the Management of Multicompartment Prolapse: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term data on robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for the treatment of multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse are scarce. With the rising prevalence of prolapse and increasing surgical repair, it is essential to evaluate long-term results. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate long-term functional and anatomic outcomes after sacrocolporectopexy. DESIGN: This is a prospective, observational cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a teaching hospital with tertiary referral function for patients with gynecological/rectal prolapse. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy from 2011 to 2012 were included. INTERVENTION: Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the anatomic cure rate after 1 and 4 years, defined as simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage 1 vaginal apical prolapse and no external rectal prolapse or internal rectal prolapse present. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for determination of recurrence-free intervals. Secondary outcomes were functional pelvic floor symptoms (symptoms of bulge, obstructed defecation, fecal incontinence, urogenital distress inventory) and quality of life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire). RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included. After 12 and 48 months, the recurrence-free intervals based on Kaplan-Meier estimates were 100% and 90%. In total, there were 10 recurrences: 2 apical and 8 internal rectal prolapses. Symptoms of bulge (94%-12%; p < 0.0005), fecal incontinence (62%-32%; p < 0.0005), obstructed defecation (59%-24%; p = 0.008), and median Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores (124-5; p = 0.022) improved significantly at final follow-up. Median urogenital distress inventory scores showed improvement after 1 year (30-13; p = 0.021). LIMITATIONS: This was an observational, single-center study with selective postoperative imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Ninety percent of patients were recurrence free 48 months after robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy. Symptoms of vaginal bulge, quality of life, constipation, and fecal incontinence improved significantly. However, a subgroup of patients showed persistent bowel complaints that underlie the complexity of multicompartment prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B265. RESULTADOS ANATÓMICOS Y FUNCIONALES A LARGO PLAZO DE LA CIRUGÍA DE PISO PÉLVICO ASISTIDA POR ROBOT EN EL TRATAMIENTO DEL PROLAPSO MULTICOMPARTIMENTAL: UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO: Los datos a largo plazo sobre la sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot para el tratamiento del prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos son escasos. Con el aumento de la prevalencia del prolapso y el aumento de la reparación quirúrgica, es esencial evaluar los resultados a largo plazo.Evaluar los resultados funcionales y anatómicos a largo plazo después de la sacrocolporectopexia.Estudio prospectivo observacional de cohorte.Hospital de enseñanza con función de referencia terciaria para pacientes con prolapso ginecológico/rectal.Todos los pacientes sometidos a sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot en 2011-2012.Sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot.El resultado primario fue la tasa de curación anatómica a uno y cuatro años, definida como etapa 1 de prolapso apical vaginal en la cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos simplificado, y sin prolapso rectal externo o prolapso rectal interno presentes. Se utilizaron curvas de Kaplan Meier para determinar los intervalos libres de recurrencia. Los resultados secundarios fueron síntomas funcionales del piso pélvico (síntomas de abultamiento, obstrucción defecatoria, incontinencia fecal, inventario de molestias urogenitales) y calidad de vida (cuestionario de impacto del piso pélvico).Se incluyeron 53 pacientes. Después de 12 y 48 meses, el intervalo libre de recurrencia basado en las estimaciones con método Kaplan Meier fue del 100% y 90%, respectivamente. En total hubo diez recurrencias: dos apicales y ocho prolapsos rectales internos. Los síntomas de abultamiento (94% a 12%; p <0.0005), incontinencia fecal (62% a 32%; p <0.0005), obstrucción defecatoria (59% a 24%; p = 0.008) y puntajes promedio del cuestionario de impacto del piso pélvico (124 a 5; p = 0.022) mejoraron significativamente en el seguimiento final. Las puntuaciones medias del inventario de molestias urogenitales mostraron una mejoría después de un año (30 a 13; p = 0.021).Estudio observacional de centro único con imagenología postoperatoria selectiva.Noventa por ciento de los pacientes estaban libres de recurrencia 48 meses después de la sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot. Los síntomas de abultamiento vaginal, la calidad de vida, el estreñimiento y la incontinencia fecal mejoraron significativamente. Sin embargo, un subgrupo de pacientes mostró molestias intestinales persistentes que subrayan a la complejidad del prolapso multicompartimental. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B265.

Application of a score for evaluation of pain, distress and discomfort in pigs with lameness and prolapses: correlation with saliva biomarkers and severity of the disease.

A score system was used to evaluate pain, distress and discomfort in healthy pigs and pigs with two different diseases: lameness and rectal prolapse. In addition, correlations between the results of this score and a panel of salivary biomarkers and severity of disease were studied. This panel included biomarkers of stress (cortisol, salivary alpha-amylase (sAA), total esterase activity (TEA), butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) and lipase (Lip)), immunity (adenosine deaminase isozymes 1 (ADA1) and 2 (ADA2)) and oxidative status (uric acid (UA), Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC), cupric reducing antioxidant capacity (CUPRAC), ferric reducing ability of saliva (FRAS), advanced oxidation protein products (AOPP) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)). Based on their score, diseased animals were subdivided in those without and with evident pain. Lame pigs and prolapsed pigs with pain showed higher salivary levels of cortisol, sAA, TEA, BChE, ADA1 and ADA2 compared with the healthy pigs. In addition, the prolapsed pigs with pain showed higher levels of FRAS, AOPP and H2O2 compared with the healthy animals. Salivary cortisol, TEA, BChE, ADA isozymes 1 and 2, FRAS and AOPP correlated with the pain score. This five-point pain score system can be easily applied to lame and prolapsed pigs, and salivary biomarkers could be used as an additional tool for pain assessment in those pigs.

Anatomical and Functional Features of the Internal Rectal Prolapse With Outlet Obstruction Determined With 3D Endorectal Ultrasonography and High-Resolution Anorectal Manometry: An Observational Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate correlation between rectal wall thickness (RWT) and anorectal pressures, in obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) patients caused by internal rectal prolapse. METHODS: ODS patients and healthy volunteers (HVs) underwent 3D endorectal ultrasound (3D-EUS) and high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM); RWT, total rectal wall volume (TRWV), pushing endorectal pressure (PEP), recto-anal gradient were determined RESULTS: We enrolled 35 ODS patients and 25 HVs. Patients showed markedly decreased TRWV, PEP, and recto-anal gradient. Linear correlation was found between markedly reduced TRWV and markedly hypotonic PEP. CONCLUSIONS: HRAM and 3D-EUS could be performed in ODS assessment, to better understand rectal function.

Stepped-wedge randomised trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is an established treatment for external full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, its clinical efficacy in patients with internal prolapse is uncertain due to the lack of high-quality evidence. METHODS: An individual level, stepped-wedge randomised trial has been designed to allow observer-blinded data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR with those who have undergone surgery. Adults with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse, unresponsive to prior conservative management, will be eligible to participate. They will be randomised to three arms with different delays before surgery (0, 12 and 24 weeks). Efficacy outcome data will be collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks). The primary objective is to determine clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls with reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) at 24 weeks serving as the primary outcome. Secondary objectives are to determine: (1) the clinical effectiveness of LVMR to 48 weeks to a maximum of 72 weeks; (2) pre-operative determinants of outcome; (3) relevant health economics for LVMR; (4) qualitative evaluation of patient and health professional experience of LVMR and (5) 30-day morbidity and mortality rates. DISCUSSION: An individual-level, stepped-wedge, randomised trial serves the purpose of providing an untreated comparison for the active treatment group, while at the same time allowing the waiting-listed participants an opportunity to obtain the intervention at a later date. In keeping with the basic ethical tenets of this design, the average waiting time for LVMR (12 weeks) will be shorter than that for routine services (24 weeks). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11747152 . Registered on 30 September 2015. The trial was prospectively registered (first patient enrolled on 21 March 2016).

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.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for obstructed defecation in patients with overt pelvic structural abnormalities-a Chinese pilot study.

AIM: As laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) gained increasing popularity in the past decade, studies from non-western area remain rare. The aim of this pilot study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LVR for obstructed defecation (OD) in Chinese patients with overt pelvic structural abnormalities. METHODS: A series of 19 consecutive patients is presented undergoing LVR for OD. All patients showed various forms of pelvic structural abnormalities which were verified by dynamic defecography exam. Data was prospectively recorded and the functional outcomes were evaluated using the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) and Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Score (PAC-QoL). RESULTS: Pelvic structural abnormalities of the 19 patients included external rectal prolapse (ER) in 10.5% (2/19), high grade internal rectal prolapse (IR) in 57.8% (11/19), rectocele in 52.6% (10/19), enterocele in 15.7% (3/19), cystocele/vaginal prolapse in 15.7 (3/19), descending perineum (DP) in 63.5% (12/19). 89.4% patients (17/19) showed at least two co-existed abnormalities and 15.7% (3/19) showed multicompartmental abnormalities. The mean follow-up was 9 months (range 1-18). No mesh-related complication was observed. At last available follow-up (LAFU), improvement of OD symptom was observed in 15 (78.9%) patients, the mean scores of CCCS decreased from 17 to 10 (p < 0.05), all four subsets of PAC-QoL scores improved, and three of them (physical discomfort, worries and concerns, satisfaction) showed statistical significance (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy appears to be a safe and effective procedure for obstructed defecation in Chinese patients with overt pelvic structural abnormalities in short-term follow-up.

Risk Factors for Recurrence After Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy effectively treats posterior compartment prolapse. However, recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate factors contributing to recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy between June 2008 and June 2014. Patients presenting with full-thickness rectal prolapse were compared against the rest. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine predictors for recurrence. Operative findings of redo cases were evaluated. SETTINGS: This study was conducted under the supervision of a single pelvic floor surgeon. PATIENTS: A total of 231 patients with a median follow-up of 47 months were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinicopathological risk factors and technical failures contributing to recurrence were analyzed. RESULTS: The overall recurrence rate was 11.7% (n = 27). Twenty-five recurrences occurred in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse, of which 16 were full-thickness recurrences (14.2% (16/113)). Multivariate analyses showed predictors for recurrence to be prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (HR = 5.57 (95% CI, 1.13 - 27.42); p = 0.04) and the use of synthetic mesh as compared with biologic grafts (HR = 4.24 (95% CI, 1.27-14.20); p = 0.02). Age >70 years and poorer preoperative continence were also associated with recurrence on univariate analysis. Technical failures contributing to recurrence included mesh detachment from the sacral promontory and inadequate midrectal mesh fixation. LIMITATIONS: Modifications to the operative technique were made throughout the study period. A postoperative defecating proctogram was not routinely performed. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is multifactorial, and risk factors are both clinical and technical. The use of biologic grafts was associated with lower recurrence as compared with synthetic mesh. Patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse who are elderly, have poorer baseline continence, and have prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency are at increased risk of recurrence.

Robot-Assisted Sacrocolporectopexy for Multicompartment Prolapse of the Pelvic Floor: A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluating Functional and Sexual Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic floor disorders are a major public health issue. For female genital prolapse, sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is a relatively new and promising technique correcting rectal prolapse. There is no literature combining the 2 robotically assisted techniques. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the safety, quality of life, and functional and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for multicompartment prolapse of the pelvic floor. DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. PATIENTS: All sexually active patients undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy at our institution between 2012 and 2014 were included. INTERVENTION: Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy was the study intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative (12 months) questionnaires using the Urinary Distress Inventory, Pescatori Incontinence Scale, Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire were completed. In addition Wexner and Vaizey incontinence scores and the Wexner constipation score were recorded postoperatively. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients underwent robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy (median follow-up, 12.5 months). The simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification improved significantly (p < 0.0005) for all 4 of the anatomic landmarks. Both median fecal (preoperative and postoperative Pescatori 4 vs 3, p = 0.002) and urinary incontinence scores (Urinary Distress Inventory, 27.8 vs 22.2; p < 0.0005) improved significantly at 12 months. Postoperatively median Wexner (3) and Vaizey incontinence (6) and Wexner Constipation (7) scores were noted. A positive effect on sexual function (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire score 31.8 vs 35.9; p = 0.002) and quality of life for each compartment (p < 0.0005) was observed. One patient (2%) developed mesh erosion. No multicompartment recurrences were detected. LIMITATIONS: This was a observational study with a limited follow-up, no control group, and no preoperatively validated constipation score. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy is a safe and effective technique for multicompartment prolapse in terms of functional outcome, quality of life, and sexual function.

Rectal prolapse traumatizes rectal neuromuscular microstructure explaining persistent rectal dysfunction.

PURPOSE: Internal rectal prolapse is common and correlates with age. It causes a plug-like physical obstruction and is a major cause of defecation disorder. The progressive distortion of the prolapsing rectum likely causes secondary defects in the rectal wall, which may exacerbate rectal dysfunction. We undertook a prospective observational study to detect and quantify the neurologic and histopathologic changes in the rectal wall. METHODS: We examined dorsal and ventral rectal wall specimens from consecutive patients with internal rectal prolapse undergoing stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR). We subjected specimens to histopathologic and neuropathologic assessment, including immunohistochemistry. We also recorded patients' clinical and demographic characteristics and sought correlations between these and the pathologic findings. RESULTS: We examined 100 specimens. The severity of rectal prolapse and the extent of descent of the perineum correlated significantly with age. Concomitant hemorrhoidal prolapse was noted in all male patients and in 79 % of female patients. Muscular and neuronal defects were detected in 94 and 90 % of the specimens, respectively. Only four specimens (4 %) were free of significant structural defects. CONCLUSION: Rectal prolapse traumatizes the rectum causing neuromuscular defects. The tissue trauma is due to shearing forces and ischemia caused by the intussusception. This initiates a self-reinforcing vicious circle of physical and functional obstruction, further impairing rectal evacuation and causing constipation and incontinence. The correlation between extent of prolapse and age suggests that internal rectal prolapse can be considered a degenerative disorder. Neural and motor defects in the wall of the rectum caused by rectal prolapse are likely irreversible.

Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse.

External and internal rectal prolapse with their affiliated rectocele and enterocele, are associated with debilitating symptoms such as obstructed defecation, pelvic pain and faecal incontinence. Since perineal procedures are associated with a higher recurrence rate, an abdominal approach is commonly preferred. Despite the description of greater than three hundred different procedures, thus far no clear superiority of one surgical technique has been demonstrated. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a relatively new and promising technique to correct rectal prolapse. In contrast to the abdominal procedures of past decades, VMR avoids posterolateral rectal mobilisation and thereby minimizes the risk of postoperative constipation. Because of a perceived acceptable recurrence rate, good functional results and low mesh-related morbidity in the short to medium term, VMR has been popularized in the past decade. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted VMR is now being progressively performed internationally and several articles and guidelines propose the procedure as the treatment of choice for rectal prolapse. In this article, an outline of the current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse is presented.