Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Techniques in Coloproctology
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 1/2020

01-01-2020 | Constipation | Original Article

Impact of TRREMS on symptoms of obstructed defecation due to rectocele: predictive factors and outcomes

Authors: F. S. P. Regadas, S. M. Murad-Regadas, L. V. Rodrigues, F. S. P. Regadas Filho, A. S. Vilarinho, D. P. Morano

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the transanal repair of rectocele and rectal mucosectomy with a single circular stapler (TRREMS) on the treatment of obstructed defecation due to rectocele and to identify the predictive factors for unsuccessful results.

Methods

Consecutive patients with obstructed defecation symptoms (ODS) associated with rectocele who had the TRREMS procedure were included. Each patient was assessed by echodefecography, manometry, and colonic transit time as well as the Cleveland Clinic constipation score (CCS) before therapy and at follow-up after 6 months. Reduction in the CCS score was calculated as a ratio. Factors correlated with a decrease in the CCS were analyzed in a univariate analysis.

Results

A total of 81 patients were included. Nineteen patients had postoperative complications that were not severe: 7 (8.6%) had tenesmus, 6 (7.4%) stenosis (4 treated with digital dilatation and 2 with endoscopic stricturectomy), 4 (4.9%) residual mucosal prolapse treated with rubber band ligation, 1 (1.2%) early bleeding, and 1(1.2%) thrombosis. Seventy-nine (97.5%) patients had a significant clinical response with significant reduction of the CCS constipation score from median 13 (range 17–10) to 4 (range, 8–2) (p = 0.0001); only 2 patients (2.5%) had an unsatisfactory response, complaining of straining and vaginal digitation during the evacuatory effort. Patients with anismus previously treated with biofeedback had a lower reduction ratio of the CCS score compared with patients without anismus (61.2 ± 2.8% versus 70.9% ± 1.5, p = 0.0006). There were no significant differences in the reduction of the CCS according to age, parity, type of delivery, previous hysterectomy, post-menopausal status, rectal mucosal prolapse and/or associated rectal intussusception, grade of rectocele and presence of complications.

Conclusions

The TRREMS procedure significantly improved evacuation disorders in this study. Appropriate selection of patients is key for the success of this approach. Anismus even if previously treated with biofeedback, was the main predictive factor of unsuccessful treatment.
Literature
1.
Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L (1999) The anatomic and functional variability of rectoceles in women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 10:96–99CrossRef
2.
Kahn MA, Stanton SL (1997) Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:882–886
3.
Arnold MW, Stewart WR, Aguilar PS (1990) Rectocele repair. Four year’s experience. Dis Colon Rectum 33:684-17
4.
Block IR (1986) Transrectal repair of rectocele using obliterative suture. Dis Colon Rectum. 29:707–711CrossRef
5.
Sarles JC, Arnaud A, Selezneff I (1989) Endo-rectal repair of rectocele Int J Colorectal Dis. 4:167–171CrossRef
6.
Murphy VK, Orkin BA, Smith LE, Glassman LM (1996) Excellent outcome using selective criteria for rectocele repair. Dis Colon Rectum 39:374–378CrossRef
7.
Stuto A, Bocassanta P, Venturi M et al (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
8.
Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Salamina G, Cesana BM, Bernasconi F, Roviaro G (2004) New trends in the surgical treatment of outlet obstruction: clinical and functional results of two novel transanal stapled techniques from a randomized controlled trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 19:359–369CrossRef
9.
Corman ML, Carriero A, Hager T et al (2006) Consensus conference on the stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) for disordered defaecation. Colorectal Dis 8:98–101CrossRef
10.
Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Stuto A et al (2004) Stapled transanal rectal resection for outlet obstruction: a prospective, multicenter trial. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1285–1297CrossRef
11.
Ommer A, Albrecht K, Wenger F, Walz MK (2006) Stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR): a new option in the treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391:32–37CrossRef
12.
Hasan Heshan M, Hasan Hani M (2012) Stapled transanal rectal resection for the surgical treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele and rectal intussusception. ISRN Surg 1:1–6CrossRef
13.
Naldini G, Fabiani B, Menconi C et al (2018) Treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome due to rectocele and rectal intussusception with a high volume stapler. Tech Coloproc 22:53–58CrossRef
14.
Regadas FS, Murad Regadas SM, Rodrigues LV et al (2005) Transanal repair of rectocele and full rectal mucosectomy with one circular stapler: a novel surgical technique. Tech Coloproctol 9:63–66CrossRef
15.
Leal VM, Regadas FSP, Regadas SMM, Rodrigues LV (2010) Clinical and functional evaluation of patients with rectocele and mucosal prolapse treated with transanal repair of rectocele and rectal intussusception with a single circular stapler (TRREMS). Tech Coloproc 14:329–335CrossRef
16.
Cruz José Vinicius, Sergio F, Regadas P, Murad-Regadas Sthela M et al (2011) TRREMS Procedure (Transanal Repair of Rectocele and Rectal Mucosectomy with one circular stapler). A prospective multicenter trial. Arq Gastroenterol 48:3–7CrossRef
17.
Agachan F, Chen T, Pfeifer J, Reissman P, Wexner SD (1996) A constipation system to simplify evaluation and management of constipated patients. Dis Colon Rectum 39:681–685CrossRef
18.
Murad-Regadas SM, Regadas FS, Rodrigues LV et al (2008) A novel three-dimensional dynamic anorectal ultrasonography technique (echodefecography) to assess obstructed defecation, a comparison with defecography. Surg Endosc 22:974–979CrossRef
19.
Hinton JM, Lennard-Jones JE, Young AC (1969) A new method for studying gut transit time using radiopaque markers. Gut 10:842–847CrossRef
20.
Regadas FSP, Murad-Regadas SM, Wexner SD et al (2006) Anorectal three-dimensional endosonography and anal manometry in assessing anterior rectocele in women: a new pathogenesis concept and the basic surgical principle. Colorectal Dis 9:80–85CrossRef
21.
Regadas FSP, Lima Barreto RG, Murad-Regadas SM et al (2012) Correlation between anorectocele with the anterior anal canal and anorectal junction anatomy using echodefecography. Tech Coloproctol 16:133–138CrossRef
22.
Soares FA, Regadas FSP, Murad-Regadas SM et al (2009) Role of age, bowel function and parity on anorectocele pathogenesis according to cinedefecography and anal manometry evaluation. Colorectal Dis 11:947–950CrossRef
23.
Dietz HP, Clarke H (2005) Prevalence of rectocele in young nulliparous women. Aust NZJ Obstet Gynecol 45:391–394CrossRef
24.
Sergio F, Regadas P, Haas Eric M, Abbas Maher A et al (2011) Prospective multicenter trial comparing echodefecography with defecography in the assessment of anorectal dysfunction in patients with obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 54:686–692CrossRef
25.
Murad-Regadas SM, dos Santos D, Soares G, Regadas FSP et al (2011) A novel three-dimensional dynamic anorectal ultrasonography technique for the assessment of perineal descent, compared with defaecography. Colorectal Dis 14:740–747CrossRef
26.
Mellgren A, Anzen B, Nilsson BY et al (1995) Results of rectocele repair: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 38:7–13CrossRef
27.
Pemberton JH, Rath DM, Ilstrup DM (1991) Evaluation and surgical treatment of severe constipation. Ann Surg 214:403–413CrossRef
28.
Dodi G, Peitroletti R, Milito G, Binda G, Pescatori M (2003) Bleeding, incontinence, pain and constipation after STARR transanal double stapling rectotomy for obstructed defecation. Tech Coloproctol 7:148–153CrossRef
29.
Lehur Paul A, Stuto Angelo, Fantoli Michel et al (2008) Outcomes of stapled transanal rectal resection vs. biofeedback for the treatment of outlet obstruction associated with rectal intussusception and rectocele: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1611–1618CrossRef
30.
Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Veglia A et al (2002) Combined perineal and endorectal repair of rectocele by circular stapler: a novel surgical technique. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1549–1552CrossRef
31.
Ayav A, Bresler L, Brunaud L, Boissel P (2004) Long-term results of transanal repair of rectocele using linear stapler. Dis Colon Rectum 47(6):889–894CrossRef
32.
Van Dam JH, Schouten WR, Ginai AZ et al (1996) The impact of anismus on the clinical outcome of rectocele repair. Int J Colorectal Dis 11:238–242CrossRef
33.
Van Dam JH, Hop WC, Schouten WR (2000) Analysis of patients with poor outcome of rectocele repair. Dis Colon Rectum 43:1556–1560CrossRef
34.
Johansson C, Nilsson BY, Hohnstr Om B, Dolk A, Mellgren A (1992) Association between rectocele and paradoxical sphincter response. Dis Colon Rectum 35:503–507CrossRef
35.
Tjandra JJ, Ooi BS, Tang CL et al (1999) Transanal repair of rectocele corrects obstructed defecation if it is not associated with anismus. Dis Colon Rectum 42:1544–1550CrossRef
36.
Gagliardi G, Pescatori M, Altomare DF et al (2008) Results, outcome predictors, and complications after stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 51:186–195CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Impact of TRREMS on symptoms of obstructed defecation due to rectocele: predictive factors and outcomes
Authors
F. S. P. Regadas
S. M. Murad-Regadas
L. V. Rodrigues
F. S. P. Regadas Filho
A. S. Vilarinho
D. P. Morano
Publication date
01-01-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02131-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Techniques in Coloproctology 1/2020 Go to the issue

Editorial

To staple or not to staple the symptomatic rectocele

Trick of the Trade

Endomucosal resection of a rectal polyp at the dentate line, an alternative to transanal endoscopic microsurgery

Correspondence

Comparision of American, German and Italian guidelines for the treatment of pilonidal disease with phenol

Review

Virtual ileostomy in elective colorectal surgery: a systematic review of the literature

CONSENSUS STATEMENT

Measuring pelvic floor disorder symptoms using patient-reported instruments: proceedings of the consensus meeting of the pelvic floor consortium of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the International Continence Society, the American Urogynecologic Society, and the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction

Technical Note

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis: a step-by-step video-guided technical note