Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1297–1302 | Cite as

No Surgery for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse: What Happens with Continence?

  • Diane CuninEmail author
  • Laurent Siproudhis
  • Véronique Desfourneaux
  • Isabelle Berkelmans
  • Bernard Meunier
  • Jean-François Bretagne
  • Guillaume Bouguen
Article

Abstract

Background

Surgery is the only validated means of treating overt rectal prolapses, but both patients and physicians may decline or postpone the surgical approach. However, little is known on the functional outcome of nonoperated rectal prolapse. The aim of the present study was to highlight the natural history of overt rectal prolapse in patients for whom surgery was avoided or delayed.

Patients and methods

A total of 206 patients complaining of full-thickness rectal prolapse were referred to a single institution that provided anorectal physiology for functional anorectal disorders. Standardized questionnaires, anorectal manometry, endosonography, and evacuation proctography constituted a prospective database. Fecal incontinence was evaluated with the Cleveland Clinic score (CCIS), and constipation was evaluated with the Knowles Eccersley Scott Symptom score (KESS).

Results

Forty-two nonoperated patients (mean age: 61 ± 16 years) were compared to those of operated patients paired according to age and gender: the mean follow-up was 44 ± 26 months. The two groups had a similar past-history, follow-up, stool frequency, and main complaints, but lower quantified symptomatic scores and a better quality of life were reported in the nonsurgical group. At the end of follow-up, the nonsurgical group did not show any variation in CCI and KESS scores. By contrast, these two scores significantly improved in the rectopexy group. Sixteen nonoperated patients experienced a degradation of their continence status with an average increase of 5 ± 4.3 points of the CCIS. The patients with a CCIS <7 at referral were likely to deteriorate as compared to those having a higher score. Patients with a symptom history longer than 4 years never improved and in two-thirds continence deteriorated throughout the follow-up.

Conclusion

In the absence of the surgical option, patients with a 4-year duration of rectal prolapse and those with mild incontinence had no chance of improvement. These findings may be taken into account when surgery of rectal prolapse is not chosen.

Keywords

Irritable Bowel Syndrome Fecal Incontinence Rectal Prolapse Enterocele Continence Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by fees from Medtronic to Laurent Siproudhis for symposium and presentation in the field of fecal incontinence.

References

  1. 1.
    Marderstein EL, Delaney CP (2007) Surgical management of rectal prolapse. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 4:552–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tou S, Brown SR, Malik AI et al (2008) Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001758Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Favreau C, Siproudhis L, Eleouet M et al (2011) Underlying functional bowel disorder may explain patient dissatisfaction after haemorrhoidal surgery. Colorectal Dis 14:356–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Palmer BV, Lockley WJ, Palmer RB et al (2002) Improvement in irritable bowel syndrome following ano-rectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 17:402–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knowles CH, Eccersley AJ, Scott SM et al (2000) Linear discriminant analysis of symptoms in patients with chronic constipation: validation of a new scoring system (KESS). Dis Colon Rectum 43:1419–1426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damon H, Guye O, Seigneurin A et al (2006) Prevalence of anal incontinence in adults and impact on quality-of-life. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 30:37–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damon H, Schott AM, Barth X et al (2008) Clinical characteristics and quality of life in a cohort of 621 patients with faecal incontinence. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:845–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siproudhis L, Ropert A, Lucas J et al (1992) Defecatory disorders, anorectal and pelvic floor dysfunction: a polygamy? Radiologic and manometric studies in 41 patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 7:102–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shorvon PJ, McHugh S, Diamant NE et al (1989) Defecography in normal volunteers: results and implications. Gut 30:1737–1749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halligan S, Bartram C, Hall C et al (1996) Enterocele revealed by simultaneous evacuation proctography and peritoneography: does “defecation block” exist? AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:461–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lehur PA, Leroi AM (2000) Anal incontinence in adults. Guidelines for clinical practice. National French Gastroenterology Society. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 24:299–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D’Hoore A, Penninckx F (2006) Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Surg Endosc 20:1919–1923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loygue J, Nordlinger B, Cunci O et al (1984) Rectopexy to the promontory for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Report of 257 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 27:356–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Damon H, Henry L, Roman S et al (2003) Influence of rectal prolapse on the asymmetry of the anal sphincter in patients with anal incontinence. BMC Gastroenterol 3:23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dvorkin LS, Chan CL, Knowles CH et al (2004) Anal sphincter morphology in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 47:198–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siproudhis L, Bellissant E, Juguet F et al (1998) Rectal adaptation to distension in patients with overt rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 85:1527–1532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norton C, Whitehead WE, Bliss DZ et al (2010) Management of fecal incontinence in adults. Neurourol Urodyn 29:199–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norton C, Cody JD, Hosker G (2006) Biofeedback and/or sphincter exercises for the treatment of fecal incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3: CD002111Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane Cunin
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Laurent Siproudhis
    • 2
    • 3
  • Véronique Desfourneaux
    • 1
  • Isabelle Berkelmans
    • 2
  • Bernard Meunier
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jean-François Bretagne
    • 2
    • 3
  • Guillaume Bouguen
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.CHU Rennes Service de Chirurgie Hépatobiliaire et DigestiveRennesFrance
  2. 2.CHU Rennes Service des Maladies de l’Appareil DigestifRennesFrance
  3. 3.Université Rennes 1RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations