Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New trends in the surgical treatment of outlet obstruction: clinical and functional results of two novel transanal stapled techniques from a randomised controlled trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aims

A randomised trial was undertaken to compare the clinical and functional results of two novel transanal stapled techniques in patients with outlet obstruction syndrome.

Materials and methods

Ninety-six females with outlet obstruction were treated with medical therapy and biofeedback for 2 months; 67 non-responders were evaluated by the Constipation Scoring and Continence Grading Systems, clinical examination, endoscopy, dynamic defecography, anorectal manometry, transanal ultrasound and anal EMG, and 50 of them, all affected with descending perineum, intussusception and rectocele, were randomly assigned to two groups and operated on: 25 patients (mean age 53.2±15.3 years) underwent a single Stapled Trans-Anal Prolapsectomy, associated with Perineal Levatorplasty (STAPL Group), and the other 25 (mean 54.6±14.2 years) underwent a double Stapled Trans-Anal Rectal Resection (STARR Group). Patients were followed-up for a mean period of 23.4±5.1 months in STAPL Group and 22.3±4.8 in STARR Group.

Results

STARR Group showed a significantly (p <0.0001) lower pattern of postoperative pain and a greater decrease (P =0.0117) of the rectal sensitivity threshold volume; otherwise, no differences were found in operative time, hospital stay, or time of inability to work. Complications included delayed healing of the perineal wound (ten), dyspareunia (five), urinary retention (two) and stenosis (one) in STAPL Group, and urge to defecate (four), transitory incontinence to flatus (two), urinary retention (two), bleeding (one) and stenosis (one) in STARR Group. All constipation symptoms significantly improved without worsening of anal continence and with excellent/good outcome at 20 months in 76 and 88% of patients of STAPL Group and STARR Group, respectively. Seven patients of STAPL Group had a little residual rectocele, while both intussusception and rectocele were corrected in all patients of STARR Group. Neither operation modified anal pressures or caused lesions of anal sphincters.

Conclusions

Both techniques are safe and effective in the treatment of outlet obstruction; nevertheless, the double Stapled Trans-Anal Rectal Resection seems to be preferable due to less pain, absence of dyspareunia, reduced rectal sensitivity threshold volume and absence of residual rectocele at defecography.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1a, b.
Fig. 2a, b.
Fig. 3a, b.
Fig. 4a–c.
Fig. 5a–c.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fucini C, Ronchi O, Elbetti C (2001) Electromyography of the pelvic floor musculature in the assessment of obstructed defecation symptoms. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1168–1175

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mellgren A, Bremmer S, Johansson C, Dolk A, Uden R, Ahlback SO, Holmstrom B (1994) Defecography, results of investigation in 2816 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 37:1133–1141

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Choi JS, Hwang YH, Salum MR, Weiss EG, Pikarsky AJ, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD (2001) Outcome and management of patients with large rectoanal intussusception. Am J Gastroenterol 96:740–744

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Singh K, Cortes E, Reid WM (2003) Evaluation of the fascial technique for surgical repair of isolated posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 101:320–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Watson SJ, Loder PB, Halligan S, Bartram CI, Kamm MA, Phillips RK (1996) Transperineal repair of symptomatic rectocele with Marlex mesh: a clinical, physiological and radiological assessment of treatment. J Am Coll Surg 183:257–261

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Holmstrom B, Broden G, Dolk A (1986) Results of the Ripstein operation in the treatment of rectal prolapse and internal rectal procidentia. Dis Colon Rectum 29:845–848

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bruch HP, Herold A, Schiedeck T, Schwandner O (1999) Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and outlet obstruction. Dis Colon Rectum 42:1189–1195

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Orrom WJ, Bartolo DC, Miller R, Mortensen NJ, Roe AM (1991) Rectopexy is ineffective treatment of obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 34:41–46

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Boccasanta P, Rosati R, Venturi M, Cioffi U, De Simone M, Montorsi M, Peracchia A (1999) Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse: results of abdominal and perineal procedures. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9:235–238

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lieberman H, Hughes C, Dippolito A (2000) Evaluation and outcome of the Delorme procedure in the treatment of rectal outlet obstruction. Dis Colon Rectum 43:188–192

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zacharin FR, Hamilton NT (1980) Pulsion enterocele: long-term results of an abdominoperineal technique. Obstet Gynecol 2:141–148

    Google Scholar 

  12. Longo A (1998) Treatment of haemorrhoidal disease by reduction of mucosa and haemorrhoidal prolapse with a circular stapling device: a new procedure. 6th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery. Monduzzi, Bologna, pp 777–784

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pescatori M, Favetta U, Dedola S, Orsini S (1997) Transanal stapled excision of rectal mucosal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 1:96–98

    Google Scholar 

  14. Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Veglia A, Petrolino M,De Fazio M, Sallustio PL (2002) Combined perineal and endorectal repair of rectocele by circularstapler: a novel surgical technique. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1549–1552

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stuto A, Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Bottini C, Caviglia A, Carriero A, Mascagni D, Mauri R, Sofo L, Landolfi V (2003) Stapled Transanal Rectal Resection (STARR) for obstructed defecation. A prospective multicentric trial. Annual Meeting Abstracts of American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 46:A21

    Google Scholar 

  16. Agachan F, Chen T, Pfeifer J, Reisman P, Wexner SD (1996) A constipation scoring system to simplify evaluation and management of constipated patients. Dis Colon Rectum 39:681–685

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oliveira J, Pfeiffer J, Wexner SD (1996) Physiological and clinical outcome of anterior sphincteroplasty. Br J Surg 83:502–505

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mahieu P, Pringot J, Bodart P (1984) Defecography. II. Contribution to the diagnosis of defecation disorders. Gastrointest Radiol 9:253–261

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Costalat G, Garrigues JM, Drawed F, Noel P, Veyrac M, Vernhet J (1989) Rectopexie antero-posterieure pour troubles de la statique rectale: résultats cliniques et radiologiques. Interet de la rectographie dinamique numerisée. A propos de trente cas. Ann Chir 43:733–743

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Choi JS, Salum MR, Moreira H Jr, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD (2000) Physiologic and clinical assessment of patients with rectoanal intussusception. Tech Coloproctol 4:29–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marti MC, Deleaval J, Roche B (1999) Rectoceles: value of videodefecography in selection of treatment policy. Colorect Dis 1:324–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Basilisco G, Velio P, Bianchi PA (1997) Oesophageal manometry in the evaluation of megacolon with onset in adult life. Gut 40:188–191

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sorensen M, Rasmussen O, Tetzschner T, Christiansen J (1992) Physiological variation in rectal compliance. Br J Surg 79:1106–1108

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Frudinger A, Bartram CI, Halligan S, Kamm M (1998) Examination techniques for endosonography of the anal canal. Abdom Imaging 23:301–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Keighley MR, Fielding JW, Alexander-Williams J (1983) Results of Marlex mesh abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse in 100 consecutive patients. Br J Surg 70:229–232

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Duthie GS, Bartolo DC (1992) Abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparison of technique. Br J Surg 79:107–113

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sielezneff I, Malouf A, Cesari J, Brunet C, Sarles JC, Sastre B (1999) Selection criteria for internal rectal prolapse repair by Delorme’s transrectal excision. Dis Colon Rectum 42:367–373

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brieger GM, Kordan AR, Houghton CR (1996) Abdominoperineal repair of pulsion rectocele. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 22:151–156

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Calabrò G, Trompetto M, Ganio E, Tessera G, Bottini C, Pulvirenti d’Urso A, Ayabaca SM, Pescatori M (2001) Which surgical approach for rectocele? A multicentric report from Italian Coloproctologists. Tech Coloproct 5:147–154

    Google Scholar 

  30. Roos P (2000) Haemorrhoid surgery revised (letter). Lancet 355:1648

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Molloy RG, Kingsmore D (2000) Life-threatening pelvic sepsis after stapled haemorrhoidectomy. Lancet 355:810

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Herold A, Kirsh JJ (2000) Pain after stapled haemorrhoidectomy (letter). Lancet 356:2187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Murphy KJ (1978) Tetanus after rubber-band ligation of haemorrhoids. BMJ 1:1590–1591

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. O’Hara VS (1980) Fatal clostridial infection following hemorrhoidal banding. Dis Colon Rectum 23:570–571

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Scarpa FJ, Hillis W, Sabetta JR (1988) Pelvis cellulitis: is a life-threatening complication of hemorrhoidal banding. Surgery 103:383–385

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Barwell J, Watkins RM, Lloyd-Davies E, Wilkins DC (1999) Life-threatening retroperitoneal sepsis after hemorrhoid injection sclerotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum 42:421–423

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Maw A, Eu KW, Seow-Chen F (2002) Retroperitoneal sepsis complicating stapled hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 45:826–828

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Felt-Bersma RJ, Poen AC, Cuesta MA, Meuwissen SG (1997) Anal sensitivity test: what does it measure and do we need it? Cause or derivative of anorectal complaints. Dis Colon Rectum 40:811–816

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ho YH, Ang M, Nyam D, Tan M, Seow-Choen F (1998) Transanal approach to rectocele repair may compromise anal sphincter pressures. Dis Colon Rectum 41:354–358

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gosselink MJ, Hop WCJ, Schouten WR (2001) Rectal compliance in females with obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 44:971–977

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Piloni V, Pomerri F, Platania E, Pieri I, Pinto F, Gasparini G, Genovesi N, Di Giandomenico E, Grassi R, Salzano A (1994) The National Workshop on Defecography: anorectal deformities with a functional origin (prolapse, intussusception, rectocele). Radiol Med 87:789–795

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. van Laarhoven CJ, Kamm MA, Bartram CI, Halligan S, Hawley PR, Phillips RK (1999) Relationship between anatomic and symptomatic long-term results after rectocele repair for impaired defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 42:204–211

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fleshman JW, Dreznick Z, Meyer K, Fry RD, Carney R, Kodner IJ (1992) Outpatient protocol for biofeedback therapy of pelvic floor outlet obstruction. Dis Colon Rectum 35:351–357

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from “ Fondazione Camillo Corti per la ricerca sulle malattie del colon”, Piazza Martini 9, 20137 Milano, Italy. The protocol study was approved by the Governing Council of the Italian Association of Coloproctology Units and did not receive any financial support for this investigation. No financial contribution has been received from any potentially interested party during the preparation of this clinical trial. In particular, no inducements have been forthcoming from Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., or Johnson & Johnson.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1st Department of General Surgery, Ospedale Maggiore di Milano, I.R.C.C.S. University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Paolo Boccasanta, Marco Venturi, Giovanni Salamina & Giancarlo Roviaro

  2. Epidemiologic Unit, Ospedale Maggiore di Milano, I.R.C.C.S. University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Bruno Mario Cesana

  3. Uro-Gynecological Department, Ospedale Civile di Desio, Milan, Italy

    Francesco Bernasconi

Authors
  1. Paolo Boccasanta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Venturi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanni Salamina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bruno Mario Cesana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesco Bernasconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giancarlo Roviaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Boccasanta.

Additional information

P. Boccasanta and M. Venturi contributed equally to this paper

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boccasanta, P., Venturi, M., Salamina, G. et al. New trends in the surgical treatment of outlet obstruction: clinical and functional results of two novel transanal stapled techniques from a randomised controlled trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 19, 359–369 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-003-0572-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-003-0572-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation