Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1393_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
11 Мб
Скачать
☆
164 S. Brown et al.
Other theories regarding the pain include staple line that impinge on pelvic floor musculature or even nervous tissue [22]. Excision of the scar has benefitted some individuals and is again worth considering. As with urgency there is a tendency for improvement with time, most resolving within 3 months [17].

Bleeding and Haematoma Formation

The incidence of significant bleeding may be as high as 5% of cases. Postoperative bleeding at the suture line was more frequently reported in early series [23] resulting in recommendations regarding technique. As much compression as pos­sible should be used and a period of waiting before and after firing the staple gun and before releasing this compression is essential before firing the staple gun. Even then, meticulous haemostasis with under-running of any bleeding vessels should be carried out [23]. Use of the PPH03 gun, which provides greater compression of the staples, certainly reduces the bleeding potential , but does not allow such a large resection as the PPH01 [24].

Urinary Retention

With any pelvic floor procedure urinary retention can be an issue, particularly if there is a pre-existing urinary outlet flow compromise. Careful fluid management during surgery and adequate initial pain relief is essential. If occurs temporary catheterization may be necessary.

Stricturing

Mild stricturing after both the stapled haemorrhoidopexy and STARR procedures is a relatively common occurrence in the authors experience and is of no consequence or responds to mild dilation on per rectal examination if the patient is examined in the office a few weeks after surgery [25]. More severe stricturing probably relates to an element of sepsis or ischemia. However, technical errors including an oblique staple line can be avoided by keeping the instrument in perfect line with the longitudinal axis of the rectum during anvil closure [23]. In cases of severe stenosis a worsening of evacuation dysfunction may result. Intervention in the form of gentle dilatation under anesthetic often suffices with more severe cases requiring excision of the scar and re-anastomosis.
9 Rectocele Repair (ODS) 165

Rarer Complications

There are some rare and rather serio us complications that have been described. These require significant surgical intervention to remedy, some are even life threatening. The potential for such events does create hesitation for the surgeon who is contemplating treating what is essentially a benign condition, with surgery only indicated in order to improve quality of life. Justification comes from the belief that these complications are rare and undoubtedly unlikely if the procedure is carried out carefully and correctly. However, it should be said that these serious complications may not be as rare as one thinks. A survey of 23 centers revealed that one third admitted to at least one serio us complication occurring after a stapling procedure [26].
Rectovaginal fistula [7, 27, 28], rectal necrosis, perforation [29], lumen oblit­eration [30], small bowel injury [25, 27, 31] and rectal pocket syndrome [32] are examples of these rare but potentially serious complications. They usually relate to technical faults by the surgeon.
Regarding rectovaginal fistula, the vaginal wall should be assessed repeatedly during the procedure and it is essential that the wall can be moved independently from the rectum when the staple gun is closed. However, even when the vagina is assessed in this way, fistulae have been described, presumably related to relative ischemia or haematoma formation and subsequent infection.
Rectal necrosis is very rare. In some cases where it has been described it has related to poor patient selection. For instance, a STARR carried out in a patient who had undergone a previous resection recto pexy was the cause in at least one case [29]. Rectal necrosis may also relate to technique; spiraling of the staple line during a trans STARR procedure may result in an ischemic section of rectal wall.
Rectal lumen obliteration has been described during a PPH procedure presum­ably when the purse-string is tied beside the stapler anvil rather than around the anvil [30].
Small bowel injury may theoretically occur if there is an enterocoele sufficiently large and low enough to be incorporated in the stapling device. Certainly such an anatomical abnormality should be checked for both during the preoperative workup and intraoperatively via bimanual palpation. Any suspicion was initially considered by many as a contraindication to STARR [25, 27, 31] but subsequent consensus opinion is that STARR can be carried out safely if combined with tilting the table to allow the enterocoele to fall away [33] or even laparoscopy to lift the bowel out of the pelvis [34, 35].
Rectal pocket syndrome [32] is a term that has been used to describe a cul-de-sac near the staple line causing entrapment of fecal material which may result in severe proctalgia and soiling. This has also been reported following PPH, and it probably represents a failure in complete placement of the purse-string favoring fecalith deposition with formation of a chronic abscess and intramural fistula. It can be treated by suture line revision, staple removal, and curettage.
166 S. Brown et al.
Retroperitoneal sepsis deserves a specific mention. This is a well-recognized phenomenon and has been described after numerous procedures for haemorrhoid treatment [36]. The common presenting symptoms are unexpected abdominal or perineal pain, urinary retention or difficulty micturating and fever. Findings at surgery may be minimal, consisting of oedema and purulent peritoneal fluid or just general inflammation. However, in many cases there may be a predisposing cause indicating a suboptimal operation. For instance a deficient staple line or inadvertent rectal perforation may lead to the sepsis [37, 38].

Conclusion

With an efficacy of 60–70% even in the best hands and an overall complication rate of about 36%, some complications being severe and possibly even life threatening, it would appear reasonable to dismiss the STARR procedure as a bad idea. How­ever, in its favor is the fact that it does resolve symptoms in a significant proportion of patients and significantly more patients than respond to conservative therapy according to the small quantity of good quality literature available [4, 5]. Many of the complications relate to poor technique and adequate training and experience is essential. Poor results also inevitably relate to poor patient selection. Apart from the above factors that have been mentioned, concomitant psychoneurosis may play a very prominent role in poor outcome with one group sugges ting a success rate for STARR dropping from 74 to 26% in those with associated psychological pathology [39].
It should be remembered that the STARR procedure has had a beneficial effect on the development of colorectal pelvic floor surgery. Interest and research in this area has increased exponentially and we now have a better understanding of the pathophysiology of obstructed defaecation. The industry backing in promoting this procedure has enabled networks of interested pelvic floor surgeons to be formed and in turn newer operations have been developed. Further understanding should result in better patient (and operation) selection, better training and experience and an overall improvement in outcome.

Complications of Rectocele Repair

As rectoceles are prevalent in women, rectocele repair is a commonly performed procedure, executed by gynecologists and colon and rectal surgeons. A common difficulty in treating rectoceles is that they are not typically found in isolation, but frequently in association with other structural abnormalities noted on physician examination and imaging, e.g.: enterocele, sigmoid ocele, colpocele, rectal intus­susception, and solitary rectal ulcer, to name a few. In addition there are associated functional disorders: anismus, pudendal neuropathy, irritable bowel syndrome,
9 Rectocele Repair (ODS) 167
rectal hypo sensation, and anxiety/depression. Therefor e it is no surprise that the array of treatment modalities ranges from dietary fiber, laxatives, enemas, pelvic floor pelvic training, psychotherapy, to surgery by transanal, trans perineal or transvaginal or abdominal approach. This chapter will address the complications of transanal, trans perineal and transvaginal approaches. The stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) is also discussed.
The most common complications are nonsuccess and recurrences. Complica­tions such as dyspareunia and incontinence are also commonly reported. To opti­mize outcome, due to the complexity of the presentation of the rectoceles with concomitant structural and functional disorders, careful patient selection extensive workup with multi-disciplinary input, optimization of bowel function, clear out­come expectations and frequently psychological evaluation prior to intervention is necessary.
Used by permission from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Su rgery.

Introduction

Rectoceles are described as an outpouching and a bulge into the posterior wall of the vagina. There is a loss of the intervening layer and the rectum is in direct contact with the vaginal wall. The bulge can reach to the level of the hymen or in most severe may descend below the hymen. Rectoceles are prevalent and noted in 12.9–
18.6% women with an average annual incidence of 5.7 cases per 100 women years [40, 41].
While the anatomic presence of a rectocele is quite common, most women are not symptomatic. Therefore careful assessment and treatment strategies are nec­essary prior to embarking on the correction of an anatomical abnormality, which
168 S. Brown et al.
can lead to potential complications and/or failure to resolve symptoms. While frequently there are other associated disorders with bulging of other organs into this area due to the weakening of the pelvic floor, such as cystocele, this chapter will focus only on the isolated rectocele treatment strategies and their complications.
This weakening of the pelvic floor can occur from an amalgamation of various processes. These can include excessive straining from multiple etiologies such as: anxiety, constipation, and discordant bowel evacuation. Trauma (birthing, chronic coughing, obesity or gynecological/anorectal surgeries) can damage to and weaken of the pelvic floor. Straining due to any primary root cause, can not only create damage to the pelvic floor muscles, but also lead to pudendal nerve stretch, which may impair further sensation, and aggravating con stipation.

Presentation and Workup

While most rectoceles are asymptomatic, others can have a plethora of symptoms, and an initial assessment, carefully teasing out these complaints, needs to be per­formed to discern how much of the symptoms can be attributed to the presence of the rectocele. This is beyond the scope of this chapter and includes incomplete evacuation, fragmentation of bowel movements, fecal incontinence, fecal leakage, or aided man evers for bowel evacuation such as pressing fingers on the perineum or against the posterior wall of the vagina, or significant repositioning techniques on the toilet, or frank digitation and disimpaction. The mechanical bulge can lead to complaints of vaginal fullness or dyspareunia.
Workup includes a minimum of physical exam and endoscopy. Further workup strategies including: transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS), defecography, anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion, entero-defecography, dynamic perineal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) defecography, pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML) and psychologi c evaluation have all been described [42–48]. Workup is dependent on physician preferences, the available facilities, and other concomitant patient complaints.

Surgical Approaches and Their Complications

The three main non-abdomi nal approaches for an isolated rectocele repair are: transvaginal, transperineal and transrectal. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the common complications that occur with each of these.
9 Rectocele Repair (ODS) 169

Transvaginal Approach

The transvaginal approach consists of an incision on the posterior vaginal wall and eventual plication of the rectovaginal fascia. Incorporating the underlying levator ani muscles with interrupted sutures from the levator plate to the perineal body, while reducing the anterior rectal wall, is the classic “posterior colporrhaphy”. The excess vaginal tissue is excised and repair is completed. This technique tends to be favored by the gynecologists given their natural comfort with a transvaginal operations. It also allows an avenue to address other gynecological concerns such as concomitant vaginal hysterectomy or cervical amputation. Since most of the reported studies describing transvaginal approaches are performed by gynecolo­gists, the great majority of patients do not have the functional preoperative workup to assess the type of constipation (outlet obstruction vs. slow transit) or the imaging (defecography) that colon and rectal surgeons tend to employ. Much of this vari­ability is due to differences in training, but this may also be by natural selection, as the gynecologists’ patients will have presenting symptoms typically more gyne­cologically focused: i.e., vagina l bulge and dyspareunia. Therefore, anal manom­etry, colonic transit studies and defecography are less utilized in gynecology preoperative workup and also the reported postoperative complications is also gynecologically focused. For example, in the gynecology literature frequently defines recurrence as the relapse of the vaginal bulge with a generalization of the postoperative defecatory complaints. Karram and Maher [49] as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence summarized an extensive review of studies and outcomes (Table 9.1). The patients were followed a minimum of 12 months in most studies. Anatomic cure ranged from 76 to 96%, vaginal bulge persisted 4–31%, vaginal digitation continued 0–33%, defecatory dysfunction was seen in 8–36%, and dyspareunia in 8–45%. Many of the trials did not include rates of dyspareunia or defecatory disorders preoperatively to allow postoperative comparison. The postoperative dyspareunia incidence can be assumed to be underestimated as many of the subjects are elderly women and sexually inactive. While the Maher study [50] noted 37/38 wom en with dyspareunia preoperatively and only 2 postoperatively, the Abramov [51] study noted an increase from 8/183 to 31/183 respectively. Kahn [52] also reported worsening postoperative dyspareunia. Weber illustrate in her study that the resultant vaginal dimension did not correlate with sexual function [53].
Comparisons amongst these studies are difficult as there is a variable selection process that led to surgery. Other complications noted in these repairs as reported by Mellgren include 12% post-operative hematoma, 4% urinary retention and 4% urinary tract infection [54]. Arnold et al. noted: 1 0% urinary retention, 4% wound breakdown, 3% infection (not abscess) and 7% impaction in the initial post-operative period in their 29 patients [55]. Long-term follow-up noted 54% with constipation, 36% incontinence, 32% pain, 41% bleeding, 23% sexual dysfunction. Despite these findings, patients reported 77% rate of improvement and 77% satisfaction.
170 S. Brown et al.
Dyspareunia
(%)
Defecatory
dysfunction (%)
Vaginal
digitalization (%)
Vaginal bulge
Anatomic cure
No. Review
Table 9.1 Review of posterior colporrhaphy/midline plication
(recurrence) (%)
(%)
(months)
Arnold 24 80 36 23
Mellgren 25 12 96 4 0 8 8
Kahn 171 42 76 31 33 11 16
Weber 53 12 26
Sand 67 12 90
Maher 38 12 87 5 16 16 5
Abramov 183 >12 82 4 18 17
Paraiso 28 17.5 86 26 32 45
Total 83 9.2 26 17 18
9 Rectocele Repair (ODS) 171
While still a trans vaginal approach, others favor a discrete identification of fascial defects and doing a localized repair with nonabsorbable suture. This is described as a “site-specific repair” in which only the area where the levator defect is seen is plicated. The theory is that minor levator ani plication will decrease incidence of dyspareunia [52, 56]. However, collection of many series (Table 9.2) by Karam [49] in comparison with posterior colporrhaphy to site-specific repair, showed no difference in regards to postoperative complications and success. The wide range of results may be attributed to the observation of Nichols that the anterior compartment repair is: “…the most misunderstood and poorly performed” gynecological surgery [57].
Other techniques described may or may not incorporate mesh (biologic: autologous/allograft/xenograft and synthetic) into the repair. Sand [58] reported on 132 women with polyglactin mesh to reinforce the repair and found no difference in comparison to those without mesh. Sung [59] compared tissue porcine sub intestinal submucosal tissue graft repair with native tissue repair in a double-blind multicenter randomized trial with 137 total women for grade 2 symptomatic rectoceles. At one year no difference was seen in objective and subjective success rates for defecatory symptoms. Dyspareunia rates were also not statistically different with 7% and 12.5% respectively. Paraiso [60] evaluated 3 techniques in a prospective randomized trial of posterior colporrhaphy, versus site-specific repair and site-specific repair augmented with porcine small intestine submucosa. While fairly small numbers in each (n = 37, 37, 32 respectively) the anatomic failure rate was statistically highest in the graft augmented group and no significant difference was seen in subjective symptoms or dyspareunia. These results do not support the use of mesh.

Transrectal Approach

Transrectal approach, also described as transanal or endorectal repair, has long been reported by colon and rectal surgeons as their procedure of choice, presumably because the approach is within these surgeons’ technical area of expertise. This technique is characterized by the plication of rectovaginal septum after raising rectal mucosal flaps, removing excess tissue and obliterating the rectocele defect. Anterior levatorplasty is frequently incor porated if incontinence is an issue [61]. While one can also address other anorectal pathology, the transrectal approach is limited in that it can only access the rectocele defect without any opportunity for repairing any other concomitant pelvic pathology such as enterocele and/or cystocele, two known contraindications [62, 63].
While the transanal technique attempts to obliterate the anatomic defect, some studies suggest this specific approach may yield better functional outcomes than other techniques [64]. Hammond studied 88 women who underwent transanal rectocele repair, specifically focusing on bowel and urinary symptoms pre and postoperatively. When compared to a control group without rectocele, women had
172 S. Brown et al.
Dyspareunia
(%)
Defecatory
dysfunction (%)
Vaginal
digitalization (%)
Table 9.2 Review of Site-Specific posterior vaginal repair
Vaginal bulge
(recurrence) (%)
Anatomic cure
(%)
(months)
No. Review
Cundiff 61 12 82 18 18 8 19
Porter 72 6 82 14 21 21 46
Kenton 46 12 90 9 15 8
Glavind 67 3 100 3
Singh 33 18 92 7 5 125
Abramov 124 >12 56 11 21 19 16
Paraiso 27 17.5 78 28
Sung 70 12 90 7 15.5 21 7
Total 83 11.4 18 17 18
9 Rectocele Repair (ODS) 173
significant improvement in multiple aspects of defecation, including straining, sensation of incomplete emptying, and need for digital support or laxatives [61].
Despite good symptomatic results with transanal repairs, a retrospective study with long term outcomes (mean 74 months) in 71 patients who underwent transanal rectocele repair showed an overall 50% recurrence rate, with 41% rate of isolated rectocele recurrence and 8% rectocele recurrence with an associated enterocele [65]. Nieminen’s randomized control trial comparing transanal to transvaginal repair in 30 patients suggested that while both techniques offered reliable repairs with associated symptomatic relief, the transanal repair led to more frequent recurrence. Rectocele recurrence was statistically significantly higher in the transanal repair group (40%) versus transvaginal group (7%), after 12-month follow-up [66]. Fur­thermore, transanal repair also caused weakened anal sphincter tone posto peratively more so than transvaginal repair, a findings supported by other groups [67]. Despite Nieminen noting worse anatomic repair and weakened sphincter tone in the transanal repair group, patients in both groups had significantly decreased need to digitate themselves during defecation and decreased rectocele symptoms. The number of patients followed was too small to detect a superiority between the two approaches [66].
Careful selection may optimize success. A prospective review of transanal repair in 59 women with obstructed defecation over 19 months found especially superior evacuation (93%) if the patients were free of anismus [67]. Another study of 45 woman who underwent transanal repair only if they demonstrated greater than 15% contrast retention on defecography, noted improvement in complete emptying, reduction in manual maneuvers, reduction in dyspareunia (11–3%) and no new reports of sexual dysfunction [69]. A third study noted 80% improvement in pre-operative symptoms when surgery was offered only to those that had admitted to defecatory support and retention of barium on defecography. In this retrospective review of selective criteria for primarily transanal repair, 88% of 33 women reported complete resolution of vaginal bulge, with 92% reporting symptomatic improvement and operative satisfaction after a mean follow-up period of 31 months [68].
The transanal approach shares many of the same complications as the transvaginal approach. Nieminen’s small randomized trial of these two techniques failed to show significant differences with respect to complications, with only 1 out of 15 transanal repairs having a postoperative infection [66]. Commonly reported complications include: fecal impaction, urinary retention, bleeding, wound break­down, sinus formation, and short longevity of the repair. Thornton [71] in his Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function observed a 13% decline in anal continence and 36% dyspareunia in the transanal arm. Complica­tions unique to the transanal approaches include rectovaginal fistula and stenosis [62, 68]. These unusual complications were reported rarely as a single incidence in most reported studies.