Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Rectal mucosal prolapse in males: surgery is effective for fecal incontinence but not for obstructed defecation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the functional outcome of transanal surgery in male patients suffering from fecal incontinence, soiling, and obstructed defecation associated with rectal mucosal prolapse.

Methods

All male patients who underwent transanal surgery (either stapled or Delorme mucosectomy) for rectal mucosal prolapse associated with fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation were prospectively enrolled in the study. The recruitment phase was 17 months (April 2011 to August 2012). Symptom evaluation was based on the validated scores preoperatively and 12 months after surgery (Wexner incontinence score and Wexner constipation score). The primary end point was “success,” which was defined as a 50 % reduction in symptoms. Using a decision-tree algorithm, patient groups with the highest and lowest chance of success were identified.

Results

Thirty-eight male patients (mean age 51 years) underwent transanal surgery for rectal mucosal prolapse. The predominant symptoms were fecal incontinence in 31 patients (82 %) and obstructed defecation in 7 (18 %). Stapled mucosectomy was performed in 34 patients and Delorme mucosectomy in 4 patients. No major morbidity occurred. Symptom resolution for soiling was 77 %, itching and mucus secretion were improved in 47 and 50 %, and bleeding resolved in 89 % of patients affected. Functional outcome was good in 90 % (28/31) of the patients with fecal incontinence but in only 28 % (2/7) for obstructed defecation. The Wexner incontinence score decreased significantly (11.1 vs. 3.9, p < 0.01), whereas the Wexner constipation score was not influenced (18.4 vs. 15.6, p > 0.05). Using a decision-tree algorithm, a success rate of 96 % was observed in patients with fecal incontinence associated with younger age (age <45 years) and no presence of fecal urgency prior to surgery.

Conclusions

Transanal stapled mucosectomy for rectal mucosal prolapse in males is effective for fecal incontinence, but not for obstructed defecation.

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. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pescatori M, Quondamcarlo C (1999) A new grading of rectal internal mucosal prolapse and its correlation with diagnosis and treatment. Int J Colorectal Dis 14:245–249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pescatori M, Spyrou M, Pulvirenti d´Urso A (2006) A prospective evaluation of occult disorders in obstructed defecation using the “iceberg diagram”. Colorectal Dis 8:785–789

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gaj F, Trecca A, Crispino P (2009) Use of an evaluation score for rectal mucosal prolapse. Chir Ital 61:77–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van der Hagen SJ, Soeters PB, Baeten CG, van Gemert WG (2011) Conservative treatment of patients with faecal soiling. Tech Coloproctol 15:291–295

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Pescatori M, Aigner F (2007) Stapled transanal rectal mucosectomy ten years after. Tech Coloproctol 11:1–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Regadas FS, Regadas SM, Rodrigues LV, Misici R, Silva FR, Regadas Filho FS (2005) Transanal repair of rectocele and full rectal mucosectomy with one circular stapler: a novel surgical technique. Tech Coloproctol 9:63–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Leal VM, Regadas FS, Regadas SM, Veras LR (2010) Clinical and functional evaluation of patients with rectocele and mucosal prolapse treated with transanal repair of rectocele and rectal mucosectomy with a single circular stapler (TRREMS). Tech Coloproctol 14:329–335

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang Y, Zhai C, Niu L, Tian L, Yang J, Hu Z (2010) A modified Delorme´s operation for the treatment of rectal mucosal prolapse. Int J Colorectal Dis 25:607–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zacharakis E, Pramateftakis MG, Kanellos D, Kanellos I, Betsis D (2007) Long-term results after transanal stapled excision of rectal internal mucosal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 11:67–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gupta PJ (2006) Randomized controlled study: radiofrequency coagulation and plication versus ligation and excision technique for rectal mucosal prolapse. Am J Surg 192:155–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kleinübing H Jr, Pinho MS, Ferreira LC (2006) Longitudinal multiple rubber band ligation: an alternative method to treat mucosal prolapse of the anterior rectal wall. Dis Colon Rectum 49:876–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Regadas FS, Regadas SM, Rodrigues LV et al (2005) New devices for stapled rectal mucosectomy: a multicenter experience. Tech Coloproctol 9:243–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Trentin G, Agresta F, Mainente P, Ciardo L, Michelet I, Bedin N (2002) Our experience in the treatment of haemorrhoids and circumferential mucosal rectal prolapse using Longo mucoprolapsectomy. Chir Ital 54:389–394

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Araki Y, Ishibashi N, Kishimoto Y et al (2001) Circular stapling procedure for mucosal prolapse of the rectum associated with outlet obstruction. Kurume Med J 48:201–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Boccasanta P, Capretti PG, Venturi M et al (2001) Randomised controlled trial between stapled circumferential mucosectomy and conventional circular hemorrhoidectomy in advanced haemorrhoids with external mucosal prolapse. Am J Surg 182:64–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pescatori M, Boffi F, Russo A, Zbar AP (2006) Complications and recurrence after excision of rectal internal mucosal prolapse for obstructed defecation. Int J Colorectal Dis 21:160–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwandner O, Bruch HP (2006) Significance of obstructed defecation in hemorrhoidal disease: results of a prospective study. Coloproctology 28:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwandner O (2012) Significance of conservative treatment for faecal incontinence. Zentralbl Chir 137:323–327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schwandner O (2012) Indications and surgical strategies in obstructed defecation syndrome. Viszeralmedizin 28:260–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schwandner O (2011) Biofeedback for fecal incontinence. What is evidence today? Chir Prax 73:203–209

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Renzi C, Pescatori M (2000) Psychologic aspects in proctalgia. Dis Colon Rectum 43:535–539

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schwandner O (2011) Stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PPH). In: Wexner SD, Fleshman J (eds) Master techniques in colon and rectal surgery. Wolters & Kluwer, USA

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schwandner O (2011) Conversion in transanal stapling techniques for haemorrhoids and anorectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis 13:87–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pescatori M, Zbar AP (2009) Tailored surgery for internal and external rectal prolapse: functional results of 268 patients operated upon by a single surgeon over a 21-year period. Colorectal Dis 11:410–419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Titi M, Jenkins JT, Urie A, Molloy RG (2007) Prospective study of the diagnostic evaluation of faecal incontinence and leakage in male patients. Colorectal Dis 9:647–652

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Qureshi MS, Rao MM, Sasapu KK et al (2011) Male faecal incontinence presents as two separate entities with implications for management. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:1589–1594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Proctology, Krankenhaus Barmherzige Brueder Regensburg, Pruefeninger Str. 89, 93049, Regensburg, Germany

    O. Schwandner & B. Schrinner

Authors
  1. O. Schwandner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Schrinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. Schwandner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwandner, O., Schrinner, B. Rectal mucosal prolapse in males: surgery is effective for fecal incontinence but not for obstructed defecation. Tech Coloproctol 18, 907–914 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1158-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1158-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation