Rectoceles: Is There a Correlation Between Presence of Vaginal Prolapse and Radiographic Findings in Symptomatic Women?

BACKGROUND: Constipation is highly prevalent. Women with constipation are evaluated for the presence of vaginal prolapse that may contribute to obstructed defecation syndrome. Defecography can identify anatomic causes of obstructed defecation syndrome (rectocele, intussusception, and enterocele). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the characteristics of women with obstructed defecation syndrome and radiographic rectoceles with and without posterior vaginal wall prolapse and to characterize the relationship between anatomical abnormalities and dysfunction. DESIGN: This is a retrospective case-control study of women with obstructed defecation syndrome who had radiographic rectoceles on defecography. SETTINGS: Women who presented to a Pelvic Floor Disorders Center were included. PATIENTS: Cases were defined as constipated women with radiographic rectoceles and at least stage II posterior vaginal wall prolapse on examination. Controls were patients with radiographic rectoceles but without posterior vaginal wall prolapse on examination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient characteristics, anorectal testing results, and validated questionnaires were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 106 women met inclusion criteria. Women with posterior vaginal wall prolapse (48 (45.3%)) had larger rectoceles on defecography than women without it on examination (3.4 cm vs 3.0 cm, p < 0.01). Women with posterior vaginal wall prolapse on examination were more likely to splint during defecation than women without vaginal wall prolapse (63.8% vs 27.3%, p < 0.01). All other defecatory symptoms, anorectal manometry parameters, and questionnaire responses were similar between groups. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective study design. Our data were taken from a single institution within a center specializing in the treatment of pelvic floor disorders, potentially limiting generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with constipation, radiographic rectoceles, and vaginal prolapse may differ from those without evidence of prolapse. Patients with vaginal prolapse were more likely to splint to aide evacuation and demonstrated larger rectoceles on defecography. Further studies are needed to determine whether constipation causes progression along this continuum or whether progression of prolapse is a cause of worsening defecatory dysfunction. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B626. RECTOCELES EXISTE UNA CORRELACIN ENTRE LA PRESENCIA DE PROLAPSO VAGINAL Y LOS HALLAZGOS RADIOLGICOS EN MUJERES SINTOMTICAS: ANTECEDENTES:El estreñimiento es una enfermedad muy prevalente. Las mujeres con estreñimiento se evalúan para detectar la presencia de prolapso vaginal que pueda contribuir al síndrome de defecación obstructiva. La defecografía puede identificar las causas anatómicas del síndrome de defecación obstructiva (rectocele, invaginación intestinal (intususcepción) y enterocele).OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar las características de las mujeres con síndrome de defecación obstructiva y la presencia de rectocele como hallazgo radiológico, con y sin prolapso de la pared vaginal posterior, y caracterizar la relación entre las anomalías anatómicas y la presencia de disfunción.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles, de mujeres con síndrome de defecación obstructiva, que tenían rectocele como hallazgo radiológico en una defecografía.MARCO:Mujeres que acudieron a un Centro de Trastornos del Piso Pélvico.PACIENTES:Los casos fueron definidos como mujeres con estreñimiento con hallazgos radiológicos de rectocele, con al menos un prolapso estadio II de la pared vaginal posterio, en el examen físico. Los controles fueron pacientes con solo rectocele por hallazgos radiológicos, sin prolapso de la pared vaginal posterior en el examen físico.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se compararon entre los grupos: las características de las pacientes, los resultados de las pruebas diagnósticas anorrectales y los cuestionarios validados.RESULTADOS:Un total de 106 mujeres cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Las mujeres con prolapso de la pared vaginal posterior 48 (45,3%) tenían rectoceles de mayor tamaño en la defecografía en comparación con las mujeres sin rectocele en el examen físico (3,4 cm versus 3,0 cm, p <0,01). Las mujeres con prolapso de la pared vaginal posterior en el examen, tenían una mayor probabilidad de que les fuera necesario ejercer una maniobra de presión manual o digital del periné durante la defecación, comparado con las mujeres sin rectocele clínico (63,8% versus 27,3%, p <0,01). Todos los demás síntomas defecatorios, los parámetros de la manometría anorrectal, y las respuestas al cuestionario fueron similares entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo. Los datos fueron obtenidos de la base de datos de un centro especializado en el tratamiento de los trastornos del piso pélvico lo que potencialmente limita generalizar.CONCLUSIONES:Las pacientes con estreñimiento, rectocele como hallazgo radiológico, y prolapso vaginal pueden ser diferentes de aquellas sin evidencia de prolapso. Las pacientes con prolapso vaginal, tenían una mayor probabilidad de que les fuera necesario ejercer maniobras manuales o digitales de presión a nivel del periné para ayudar a la evacuación, y tenían rectoceles de mayor tamaño en la defecografía. Se necesitan más estudios para determinar si el estreñimiento causa que el rectocele aumente progresivamente de tamaño, empeorando la disfunción defecatoria. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B626.

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).

Urinary symptoms in women with faecal incontinence.

AIM: Faecal incontinence (FI) is estimated to affect 8.9% of women in the United States, with a significant impact on quality of life. Our aim was to compare urinary symptoms in patients with and without FI with different degrees of severity. METHODS: This prospective cohort of women presented for care at a pelvic floor disorder centre between May 2007 and January 2019. We excluded women with a history of bowel resection, prior history of pelvic organ prolapse surgery or existing prolapse symptoms reported by the patient during intake. The primary outcome was the presence of urinary symptoms in women with and without FI by validated questionnaires. A logistic regression model for association of urinary symptoms with FI was performed, adjusting for age, smoking, diabetes, prior hysterectomy and irritable bowel syndrome. RESULTS: A total of 2932 met inclusion criteria, and of these 1404 (47.89%) reported FI. In the univariate analysis, patients with FI were more likely to have urgency urinary incontinence (P = 0.01) or mixed urinary incontinence (P < 0.001), report nocturnal enuresis (P < 0.001) or have leakage of urine during sex (P < 0.001). In an adjusted model, FI was associated with concurrent stress (adjusted OR 1.28, P = 0.034), urgency (adjusted OR 1.52, P < 0.001) and mixed incontinence (adjusted OR 1.94, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In women with pelvic floor disorders, the presence of FI is associated with a higher prevalence of urinary incontinence. Pelvic floor specialists should assess urinary incontinence symptoms along with the presence and severity of FI to provide comprehensive care and guide appropriate therapy.

Bowel Function After J-Pouch May Be More Complex Than Previously Appreciated: A Comprehensive Analysis to Highlight Existing Knowledge Gaps.

BACKGROUND: Functional outcomes following J-pouch for ulcerative colitis have been studied, but lack standardization in which symptoms are reported. Furthermore, the selection of symptoms studied has not been patient centered. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to utilize a validated bowel function survey to determine which symptoms are present after J-pouch creation, and whether patients display a functional profile similar to low anterior resection syndrome. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained single-center database. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at the colorectal surgery center of a tertiary care academic hospital PATIENTS:: Included were 159 patients with J-pouch, ≥6 months after ileostomy reversal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were individual answers to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Instrument. The original Bowel Function Instrument validation cohort was used as an historical comparison (n = 127). RESULTS: The mean total Bowel Function Instrument score for the J-pouch cohort was 59.9 ± 9.7 compared with a reported average score of 63.7 ± 11.6 for patients with low anterior resection in the validation cohort (p < 0.001), indicating worse bowel function in patients with J-pouch. When evaluating the Bowel Function Instrument subscales, patients with J-pouch reported frequency subscale scores of 18.2 ± 3.8, diet scores of 12.2 ± 3.8, and urgency scores of 15.9 ± 3.7, compared with 21.7 ± 4.5 (p < 0.001), 14.1 ± 3.7 (p < 0.001), and 15.0 ± 3.9 (p = 0.04) for patients undergoing rectal resection. Furthermore, 90.4% of patients with J-pouch state that they are sometimes, rarely, or never able to wait 15 minutes to get to the toilet. In addition, 56.4% of patients report having another bowel movement within 15 minutes of the last bowel movement, sometimes, always, or most of the time, and 50.6% of patients say that they sometimes, rarely, or never feel like their bowels have been totally emptied after a bowel movement. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited because it took place at a single center and the Bowel Function Instrument was only validated for patients undergoing rectal resection. CONCLUSIONS: Patients that undergo J-pouch surgery exhibit a constellation of bowel function symptoms that is more complex than fecal incontinence and frequency alone, despite the focus on these functional outcomes in the literature. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B73. LA FUNCIÓN INTESTINAL DESPUÉS DE LA BOLSA EN J PUEDE SER MÁS COMPLEJA DE LO QUE SE APRECIABA ANTERIORMENTE: UN ANÁLISIS EXHAUSTIVO PARA RESALTAR LAS BRECHAS DE CONOCIMIENTO EXISTENTES: Se han estudiado los resultados funcionales después de la bolsa en J para la colitis ulcerosa, pero carecen de estandarización en la que se informen los síntomas. Además, la selección de los síntomas estudiados no se ha centrado en el paciente.Utilizar una encuesta validada de la función intestinal para determinar qué síntomas están presentes después de la bolsa en J y si los pacientes muestran un perfil funcional similar al síndrome de resección anterior baja.Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos de un solo centro mantenida prospectivamente.Centro de cirugía colorrectal de un hospital académico de atención terciaria.159 pacientes con bolsa en J, ≥6 meses después de la reversión de ileostomía.Instrumento para la función intestinal del "Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center"; cohorte de validación original de instrumentos de función intestinal utilizada como comparación histórica (n = 127).La puntuación media total del instrumento de función intestinal para la cohorte de bolsa J fue 59.9 ± 9.7 en comparación con un puntaje promedio reportado de 63.7 ± 11.6 para pacientes con resección anterior baja en la cohorte de validación (p < 0.001), lo que indica peor función intestinal en pacientes con bolsa en J. Al evaluar las subescalas del instrumento de función intestinal, los pacientes con bolsa en J informaron puntuaciones de subescala de frecuencia de 18.2 ± 3.8, puntuaciones de dieta de 12.2 ± 3.8 y puntuaciones de urgencia de 15.9 ± 3.7, en comparación con 21.7 ± 4.5 (p < 0.001), 14.1 ± 3.7 (p < 0.001) y 15.0 ± 3.9 (p = 0.04) respectivamente para pacientes con resección rectal. Además, el 90.4% de los pacientes con bolsa en J afirman que a veces, rara vez o nunca pueden esperar 15 minutos para llegar al baño. Además, el 56.4% de los pacientes reportan haber tenido otra evacuación intestinal dentro de los 15 minutos posteriores a la última evacuación intestinal, a veces, siempre o la mayor parte del tiempo, y el 50.6% de los pacientes dicen que a veces, rara vez o nunca sienten que sus intestinos han sido vaciados totalmente después de una evacuación intestinal.Estudio en un solo centro, instrumento de función intestinal validado solo para pacientes con resección rectalLos pacientes que se someten a una bolsa en J exhiben una constelación de síntomas de la función intestinal que es más compleja que la incontinencia fecal y la frecuencia sola, a pesar del enfoque en estos resultados funcionales en la literatura.Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B73. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Federico Hagerman).

A Quality-of-Life Comparison of Two Fecal Incontinence Phenotypes: Isolated Fecal Incontinence Versus Concurrent Fecal Incontinence With Constipation.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with fecal incontinence report coexisting constipation. This subset of patients has not been well characterized or understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the frequency of fecal incontinence with concurrent constipation and to compare quality-of-life outcomes of patients with fecal incontinence with and without constipation. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. Survey data, including Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, Constipation Severity Instrument, Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life survey (categorized as lifestyle, coping, depression, and embarrassment), Pelvic Organ Prolapse Inventory and Urinary Distress Inventory surveys, and anorectal physiology testing were obtained. SETTINGS: The study was conducted as a single-institution study from January 2007 to January 2017. PATIENTS: Study patients had fecal incontinence presented to a tertiary pelvic floor center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-of-life survey findings were measured. RESULTS: A total of 946 patients with fecal incontinence were identified, and 656 (69.3%) had coexisting constipation. Patients with fecal incontinence with constipation were less likely to report a history of pregnancy (89.2% vs 91.4%; p = 0.001) or complicated delivery, such as requiring instrumentation (9.1% vs 18.1%; p = 0.005), when compared with patients with isolated fecal incontinence. Patients with fecal incontinence with constipation had higher rates of coexisting pelvic organ prolapse (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Inventory: 18.4 vs 8.2; p < 0.01), higher rates of urinary incontinence (Urinary Distress Inventory: 30.2 vs 23.4; p = 0.01), and higher pressure findings on manometry; intussusception on defecography was common. Patients with fecal incontinence with concurrent constipation had less severe incontinence scores at presentation (21.0 vs 23.8; p < 0.001) and yet lower overall health satisfaction (28.9% vs 42.5%; p < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores declined as constipation severity increased for lifestyle, coping, depression, and embarrassment. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-institution study, and surgeon preference could bias population and anorectal physiology testing. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fecal incontinence with concurrent constipation represent a different disease phenotype and have different clinical and anorectal physiology test findings and worse overall quality of life. Treatment of these patients requires careful consideration of prolapse pathology with coordinated treatment of coexisting disorders. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A783.

The Contributions of Internal Intussusception, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Pelvic Floor Dyssynergia to Obstructed Defecation Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been a trend toward surgical management of internal intussusception despite an unclear correlation with constipation symptoms. OBJECTIVE: This study characterizes constipation in patients with obstructed defecation syndrome and identifies whether internal intussusception or other diagnoses such as irritable bowel syndrome may be contributing to symptoms. DESIGN: Patients evaluated for obstructed defecation at a pelvic floor disorder center were studied from a prospectively maintained database. With the use of defecography, patients were classified by Oxford Rectal Prolapse Grade. Coexisting disorders such as enterocele, rectocele, and dyssynergia were also identified. The presence of irritable bowel syndrome was defined using Rome IV criteria, and constipation severity was quantified with the Varma constipation severity instrument. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary care university medical center (Massachusetts General Hospital). PATIENTS: The study included 317 consecutive patients with defecography imaging and a completed constipation severity instrument survey from May 2007 to July 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were the Varma Constipation Severity Instrument overall score and obstructed defecation subscale score. RESULTS: Of 317 patients evaluated, 95 (30.0%) had no internal intussusception, 126 (39.7%) had intra-rectal intussusception, and 96 (30.3%) had intra-anal intussusception. There was no association between rising grade of internal intussusception and either overall constipation score or obstructed defecation subscale score. Irritable bowel syndrome was associated with an increase in overall constipation score and obstructed defecation subscale score (40.5 ± 13.6 vs 36.0 ± 15.1, p = 0.007, and 22.3 ± 5.8 vs 20.0 ± 6.6, p < 0.001). Multivariate regression found irritable bowel syndrome and dyssynergia to be associated with a significant increase in obstructed defecation subscale scores. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited because it was an observational study from a single center. CONCLUSIONS: Patients referred for surgical management of obstructive defecation syndrome should be screened and treated for irritable bowel syndrome and dyssynergia before considering surgical intervention. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A782.

Comparable perioperative outcomes, long-term outcomes, and quality of life in a retrospective analysis of ulcerative colitis patients following 2-stage versus 3-stage proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.

PURPOSE: Many surgeons assume 3-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is safer than 2-stage IPAA in patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC), although recent data suggest outcomes are comparable. This study aimed to compare perioperative complications, late complications, and functional outcomes after 2- versus 3-stage IPAA in patients with active UC. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent 2- or 3-stage IPAA for active UC from 2000 to 2015 in a high-volume institution. Patients completed quality-of-life surveys 6 months following ileostomy reversal. Perioperative and late complications were recorded. Outcomes were compared with the Fisher exact test, and multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 212 patients who underwent 2- or 3-stage IPAA for active UC, of whom 157 patients (74.1%) underwent 2-stage procedures and 55 (25.9%) underwent 3-stage procedures. More patients undergoing 2-stage procedures were taking immunomodulators preoperatively (46.3% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.01), but there was no difference in use of steroids (p = 0.09) or biologic agents (p = 0.85). Three-stage procedures were more likely to be urgent (78.6% vs. 30.2%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications (p = 0.50), anastomotic leak (p = 0.94), pouchitis (p = 0.45), pouch failure (p = 0.46), perceived quality of life (p = 0.68), number of bowel movements per day (p = 0.27), or sexual satisfaction (p = 0.21) between the 2- and 3-stage groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing 2-stage compared to 3-stage IPAA for active ulcerative colitis have comparable outcomes and quality of life following ileostomy reversal. Two-stage IPAA appears to be safe and appropriate, even in high-risk patients.

What Is the Risk of Anal Carcinoma in Patients With Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia III?

BACKGROUND: The risk of anal carcinoma after previous diagnosis of anal intraepithelial neoplasia III is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the risk of anal carcinoma in patients with anal intraepithelial neoplasia III and to identify predictors for subsequent malignancy. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry (1973-2014). SETTING: The study was composed of population-based cancer registries from the United States. PATIENTS: Patients who were diagnosed with anal intraepithelial neoplasia III were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was rate of subsequent anal squamous cell carcinoma. Predictors for anal cancer were identified using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 2074 patients with anal intraepithelial neoplasia III were identified and followed for a median time of 4.0 years (interquartile range, 1.8-6.7 y). Of the cohort, 171 patients (8.2%) subsequently developed anal cancer. Median time from anal intraepithelial neoplasia III diagnosis to anal cancer diagnosis was 2.7 years (interquartile range, 1.1-4.5 y). Fifty-two patients (30.4%) who developed anal carcinoma were staged T2 or higher. Ablative therapies for initial anal intraepithelial neoplasia III were associated with a reduction in the risk of anal cancer (OR = 0.3 (95% CI, 0.1-0.7); p = 0.004). Time-to-event analysis revealed that the 5-year incidence of anal carcinoma after anal intraepithelial neoplasia III was 9.5% or ≈1.9% per year. LIMITATIONS: The registry did not record HIV status, surveillance schedule, use of high-resolution anoscopy, or provider specialty. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest published cohort of patients with anal intraepithelial neoplasia III, ≈10% of patients were projected to develop anal cancer within 5 years. Nearly one third of anal cancers were diagnosed at stage T2 or higher despite a previous diagnosis of anal intraepithelial neoplasia III. Ablative procedures were associated with a decreased risk of cancer. This study highlights the considerable rate of malignancy in patients with anal intraepithelial neoplasia III and the need for effective therapies and surveillance. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A764.

Impact of Rising Grades of Internal Rectal Intussusception on Fecal Continence and Symptoms of Constipation.

BACKGROUND: A theory of rectal intussusception has been advanced that intrarectal intussusception, intra-anal intussusception, and external rectal prolapse are points on a continuum and are a cause of fecal incontinence and constipation. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the association among rectal intussusception, constipation, fecal incontinence, and anorectal manometry. DESIGN: Patients undergoing defecography were studied from a prospectively maintained database and classified according to the Oxford Rectal Prolapse Grade as normal or having intra-rectal, intra-anal, or external intussusception. Patient symptoms were assessed using the Constipation Severity Index and the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index. Quality-of-life surveys were also used. Patients also underwent anorectal manometry. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary care university medical center (Massachusetts General Hospital). PATIENTS: The study included 147 consecutive patients undergoing evaluation for evacuatory dysfunction and involved defecography, symptoms questionnaires, and anorectal physiology testing from January 2011 to December 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom severity and quality-of-life scores were measured, as well as anal manometry results. RESULTS: Increasing Oxford grade was associated with an increase in severity of fecal incontinence (median score: normal = 23.9, intrarectal = 21.0, intra-anal = 30.0, external prolapse = 35.3; ß = 4.71; p = 0.009), which persisted in a multivariable model including age (ß = 2.13; p = 0.03), and decreased sphincter pressures (median mean resting pressure: normal = 75.4, intra-rectal = 69.7, intra-anal = 64.3, external prolapse = 48.3; ß = -8.57; p = 0.003), which did not persist in a multivariable model. Constipation severity did not increase with rising intussusception (mean score: normal = 37.4, intrarectal = 35.0, intra-anal = 41.4, external prolapse = 32.9; p = 0.79), and balloon expulsion improved rather than worsened (normal = 47.1%, intrarectal = 60.5%, intra-anal = 82.9%, external prolapse = 93.1%; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited because it was an observational study from a single center. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing grades of rectal intussusception are associated with increasing fecal incontinence but not constipation.

Effect of Coexisting Pelvic Floor Disorders on Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scores: A Prospective, Survey-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: The association between an objective measure of fecal incontinence severity and patient-reported quality of life is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients with various degrees of fecal incontinence to determine whether their quality of life as measured by the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale is affected by coexisting pelvic floor disorders. DESIGN: This was a prospective, survey-based study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary pelvic floor disorders center. PATIENTS: Included patients were all of those presenting between January 2007 and March 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey data were analyzed to determine the association between Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale, as well as scores from the Constipation Severity Instrument, Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, Pelvic Organ Distress Inventory, and Urinary Distress Inventory. RESULTS: A total of 585 patients reported fecal incontinence ranging from none (n = 191) to mild/moderate (n = 159) to severe (n = 235). As expected, patients with severe fecal incontinence have worse scores on all fecal incontinence quality-of-life subscales (lifestyle, coping/behavior, depression/self-perception, and embarrassment) and worse colorectal/anal symptoms than those with mild/moderate or no fecal incontinence (p < 0.0001). Patients with severe fecal incontinence also have worse bladder/urinary symptoms (p ≤ 0.0001). Pelvic organ prolapse and constipation symptoms were similar between groups (p ≥ 0.61). After correcting for baseline differences in patient comorbidities and bladder/urinary symptoms, a significant association persisted between Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and all of the subscales of the fecal incontinence quality-of-life instrument (p < 0.0001). However, urinary distress scores also remained significantly associated with all of the fecal incontinence quality-of-life subscales except for embarrassment after risk adjustment (p < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Nongeneral population and a lack of patient data on previous medical management of fecal incontinence were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: The Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale correlates strongly with instruments measuring both fecal and urinary incontinence. This underscores the importance of quantifying the presence or absence of coexistent urinary leakage in studies where a drop in fecal incontinence quality of life is considered a primary end point.

Sigmoidectomy syndrome? Patients' perspectives on the functional outcomes following surgery for diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Bowel function following surgery for diverticulitis has not previously been systematically described. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to document the frequency, severity, and predictors of suboptimal bowel function in patients who have undergone sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis. SETTING: This study was conducted at a large, academic medical center. PATIENTS: Three hundred twenty-five patients who underwent laparoscopic or open sigmoid colectomy with restoration of intestinal continuity for diverticulitis were included in the study population. Of these, 249 patients (76.6%) returned a 70-question survey incorporating the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale, and the Memorial Bowel Function Instrument. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey responders and nonresponders were compared with the use of χ and t tests. Responders with suboptimal bowel function (fecal incontinence, urgency and/or incomplete emptying) were then compared with those with good outcomes by the use of logistic regression analysis to determine the predictors of poor function. RESULTS: Of the responders, 24.8% reported clinically relevant fecal incontinence (Fecal Incontinence Severity Index ≥ 24), 19.6% reported fecal urgency (Memorial Bowel Function Instrument Urgency Subscale ≥ 4), and 20.8% reported incomplete emptying (Memorial Bowel Function Instrument Emptying Subscale ≥ 4). On logistic regression analysis, fecal incontinence was predicted by female sex (OR = 2.3, p = 0.008) and the presence of a preoperative abscess (OR = 1.4, p < 0.05). Fecal urgency was associated with female sex (OR = 1.3, p < 0.05) and a diverting ileostomy (OR = 2.1, p < 0.001). Incomplete emptying was associated with female sex (OR = 1.4, p < 0.05) and postoperative sepsis (OR = 1.9, p < 0.05). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the fact that we did not use a nondiverticulitis control group and we had limited preoperative data on the history of bowel impairment symptoms. CONCLUSION: One-fifth of patients reported fecal urgency, fecal incontinence, or incomplete emptying after surgery for diverticulitis. Despite the limitations of our study, these results are concerning and should be investigated further prospectively.

Measurements of pelvic floor dyssynergia: which test result matters?

PURPOSE: Failure to expel a 60-mL balloon on manometry and abnormal relaxation of anal sphincter on electromyographic testing are frequently used to diagnose pelvic floor dyssynergia. However, the relationship between these 2 test results and their relationship to defecography is poorly characterized. We aimed to describe this relationship and create a predictive model for pelvic floor dyssynergia on defecography. METHODS: From March 2008 to April 2010 consecutive patients with symptoms suggestive of functional constipation were evaluated at our Pelvic Floor Disorders Center 125 and the results of their workups were collected prospectively. Sixty-three patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia on defecography were compared with 60 patients without dyssynergia in terms of manometry pressures, electromyographic text results, and balloon expulsion testing results (χ, t tests). RESULTS: Of 125 patients meeting Rome II symptom criteria for constipation, 123 patients underwent defecography and, of these, 63 (51.2%) had evidence of pelvic floor dyssynergia. Patients with and without dyssynergia had a slight difference in mean resting pressures (62.8 mmHg vs 49.5 mmHg, P = .02) and no discernable differences in rectal sensitivity and compliance: first sensation (56.5 vs 62.5, P = .34) and maximum tolerated volume (164.2 vs 191.2, P = .09). It appeared that abnormalities in electromyographic relaxation and balloon expulsion occurred in the same patients: 84.1% of patients with abnormal electromyographic results also did not expel the balloon. However, the presence of these abnormalities, in isolation or together, did not predict the presence of dyssynergia on defecography. CONCLUSION: Normal electromyographic results or the ability to expel a 60-mL balloon does not exclude the presence of pelvic floor dyssynergia on defecography. It is unclear which of these 3 tests should be used to guide the recommendation for (and to then measure response to) biofeedback.

Addition of a scripted pre-operative patient education module to an existing ERAS pathway further reduces length of stay.

BACKGROUND: While enhanced recovery pathways (ERAS) appear to be beneficial for post-operative outcomes, there have been no studies evaluating the specific role of patient education within an ERAS pathway. METHODS: We identified all colectomies performed at our institution since initiation of an ERAS protocol, excluding for mortality and length of stay >30 days. Patients who received preoperative education by a nurse practitioner via a scripted telephone call were compared to patients who did not receive education using the NSQIP database. We then evaluated differences in surgical complications and length of stay among these cohorts. RESULTS: Patients who received scripted education phone calls had a significantly shorter mean length of stay when compared to patients that receiving usual care (3.0 ±â€¯2.2 vs 3.7 ±â€¯3.2 days; p = 0.005). Subgroup analysis demonstrates strongest benefit in patients undergoing left colectomy and laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Scripted patient education modules may shorten length of stays and postoperative complications, even when added to an already existing ERAS bundle, which may translate into significant hospital cost savings.

Does intramesorectal proctectomy with rectal eversion affect postoperative complications compared to standard total mesorectal excision in patients with ulcerative colitis?

INTRODUCTION: Proctectomy for ulcerative colitis (UC) can be performed via intramesorectal proctectomy with concomitant rectal eversion (IMP/RE) or total mesorectal excision (TME). No data exists comparing the outcomes of the two techniques. METHODS: All UC patients undergoing J-pouch surgery at a single institution over 10.5 years were included. Postoperative complications with IMP/RE vs. TME were analyzed using univariable and multivariable statistics. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen of 201 (59 %) patients underwent IMP/RE. Demographic and disease characteristics were similar between groups. On univariable analysis, IMP/RE had fewer total perioperative complications than TME (p = 0.02), but no differences in postoperative length of stay or readmissions. Multivariable regression accounting for patient age, comorbidities, disease severity, preoperative medications, operative technique, and follow-up time (mean 5.5 ± 0.2 years) suggested that both anastomotic leak rate (OR 0.32; p = 0.04) and overall postoperative complications (2.10 ± 0.17 vs. 2.60 ± 0.20; p = 0.05) were lower in the IMP/RE group. CONCLUSIONS: IMP/RE may be associated with fewer overall postoperative complications compared to TME. However, further studies on functional and long-term outcomes are needed.

Does intramesorectal excision for ulcerative colitis impact bowel and sexual function when compared with total mesorectal excision?

BACKGROUND: Proctectomy for ulcerative colitis (UC) can be performed via intramesorectal (IME) or total mesorectal excision (TME). METHODS: We compared patient-reported bowel and sexual function among IME versus TME UC patients (September 2000 to March 2011) using the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function scale, Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life, Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, Female Sexual Function Instrument, and International Index of Erectile Dysfunction surveys. RESULTS: Eighty-nine IME versus TME patients (35 ± 2 years, 57% male, 62% IME) had similar baseline characteristics, although IME patients had more open procedures (P ≤ .03). IME patients reported better fecal continence (P = .009) but similar fecal incontinence-related quality of life (P ≥ .44). For sexual function, there were no differences for either women (Female Sexual Function Instrument; P ≥ .20) or men (International Index of Erectile Dysfunction; P ≥ .22). CONCLUSIONS: IME appears to be associated with better fecal continence but no difference in overall bowel or sexual function compared with TME in patients with UC.

In patients with rectoceles and obstructed defecation syndrome, surgery should be the option of last resort.

BACKGROUND: The indications for operation in patients with obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) with rectocele are not well defined. METHODS: A total of 90 female patients with ODS and rectocele were prospectively evaluated and treated with fiber supplements and biofeedback training. Univariate and multivariate regression was used to determine factors predictive of failing medical management. RESULTS: Obstructive symptoms were the most prevalent presenting complaint (82.2%). Ultimately, 71.1% of patients responded to medical management and biofeedback. Multivariate regression analysis suggested that the presence of internal intussusception was associated with a lower chance of undergoing surgery to address ODS symptoms [odds ratio 0.18; P = .05], whereas inability to expel balloon, contrast retention on defecography, and splinting were not (P ≥ .15). CONCLUSION: Rectoceles with concomitant intussusception in patients with ODS appear to portend a favorable response to biofeedback and medical management. We argue that all patients considered for surgery for rectoceles because of ODS should first undergo appropriate bowel retraining.