New trends in the surgical treatment of outlet obstruction: clinical and functional results of two novel transanal stapled techniques from a randomised controlled trial
- 368 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsDescending perineum Intussusception Outlet obstruction Rectocele Trans-anal stapled surgery
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.
- 11.Zacharin FR, Hamilton NT (1980) Pulsion enterocele: long-term results of an abdominoperineal technique. Obstet Gynecol 2:141–148Google 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 777–784Google Scholar
- 13.Pescatori M, Favetta U, Dedola S, Orsini S (1997) Transanal stapled excision of rectal mucosal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 1:96–98Google 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:A21Google 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 39:681–685Google Scholar
- 17.Oliveira J, Pfeiffer J, Wexner SD (1996) Physiological and clinical outcome of anterior sphincteroplasty. Br J Surg 83:502–505Google 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 5:147–154Google Scholar
- 30.Roos P (2000) Haemorrhoid surgery revised (letter). Lancet 355:1648Google Scholar
- 33.Murphy KJ (1978) Tetanus after rubber-band ligation of haemorrhoids. BMJ 1:1590–1591Google 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 87:789–795Google 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 42:204–211Google 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 35:351–357Google Scholar