Long-term results of rectocele surgical treatment
Abstract
Aim of investigation. Evaluation of quality of life and studying of long-term results of treatment in patients after rectocele surgery.
Material and methods. Original study included patients (n=41), operated in State Scientific Center of Coloproctology for rectocele in 2007 to 2011. Age of patients was 24 to 64 years (mean —48,95±9,09). The plasty of rectovaginal septum was executed by an implant in 23 patients (56,1%), in 18 (43,9%) Longo's procedure, including combination to plasty of rectovaginal septum by polypropylene implant in 9 cases (21,6%). Results of surgery were estimated in terms of 6 to 60 months after operation. The median follow-up period was 36 months.
Results. Good and satisfactory results of treatment were achieved in 28 (70,7%) patients. improvement rectum function was marked in comparison to preoperative period. Unsatisfactory results were registered in 12 (29,3%) patients which postsurgical state did not improve.
Conclusion. Analysis of results indicated, that evacuatory function of the rectum in the first 2 years after operation improved at 85,4% of patients, however eventually in 46,3% it worsened. It was found also, that results of operation did not depend on the method of rectocele surgery. During the study statistically significant factors influencing results of rectocele treatment were revealed: age of patients, duration of constipation and number of deliveries in past history, as well as the presence of internal rectal intussusception.
About the Authors
Yu. A. Shelygin
Federal state-funded institution «State scientific center of coloproctology» Ministry of heathcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. Yu. Titov
Federal state-funded institution «State scientific center of coloproctology» Ministry of heathcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
O. M. Biryukov
Federal state-funded institution «State scientific center of coloproctology» Ministry of heathcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. A. Mudrov
Federal state-funded institution «State scientific center of coloproctology» Ministry of heathcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
L. P. Orlova
Federal state-funded institution «State scientific center of coloproctology» Ministry of heathcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. A. Tikhonov
Federal state-funded institution «State scientific center of coloproctology» Ministry of heathcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yu. A. Dzhanayev
Federal state-funded institution «State scientific center of coloproctology» Ministry of heathcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
M. A. Voynov
Federal state-funded institution «State scientific center of coloproctology» Ministry of heathcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Абдуллаев М.Ш. Клиника, диагностика и лечение ректоцеле. Дис. … канд. мед. наук. – Алма-ата, 1989.
2. Аминев А.М. Руководство по проктологии. – Куйбышев: Книжное изд., 1971. – Т. 2. – С. 437–453.
3. Беженарь В.Ф. Осложнения, возникающие при хирургическом лечении пролапса тазовых органов с использованием системы Prolift // Акуш. жен. бол. – 2009. – Т. 58, № 5. – С. 25–26.
4. Глебова Н.Н. Методы хирургического лечения опущения и выпадения матки и стенок влагалища: Тез. докл. Республ. науч.-практ. конф. акушерство и гинекологии. – Уфа, 1989. – С. 58–62.
5. Тарасов Н.И., Миронов В.И., Шульгин А.С. Выбор метода оперативного лечения пролапса гениталий у женщин // Урология. – 2008. – № 6. – С. 33–37.
6. Шелыгин Ю.А., Титов А.Ю., Джанаев Ю.А. и др. Особенности клинической картины и характер нейрофункциональных нарушений у больных ректоцеле // Колопроктология. – 2012. – Т. 42, № 4. – С. 27–32.
7. Arnold M.W., Stewart W.R.C., Aguilar P.S. Rectocele repair: Four years’ experience // Dis. Colon Rectum. – 1990. – Vol. 33. – Р. 684–687.
8. Block I.R. Transrectal repair of rectocele using obliterative suture // Dis. Colon Rectum. – 1986. – Vol. 29. – Р. 707–711.
9. Boccasanta P., Venturi M., Cioffi U. et al. Selection criteria and long-term results of surgery in symptomatic rectocele // Minerva Chir. – 2002. – Vol. 57, N 2. – Р. 157–163.
10. Gagliardi G., Pescatori M., Altomare D.F. et al. Results, outcome predictors, and complications after stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation // Dis. Colon Rectum. – 2008. – Vol. 51, N 2. – Р. 186–95
11. Khubchandani I.T., Hakki A.R., Sheets J.R., Stasik J.J. Endorectal repair of rectocele // Dis. Colon Rectum. – 1983. – Vol. 26. – Р. 792–796.
12. Sarles J.C., Arnaud A., Selezneff I., Olivier S. Endorectal repair of rectocele // Int. J. Colorectal Dis. – 1989. – Vol. 4. – Р. 167–171
13. Savoye-Collet C., Savoye G., Koning E. et al. Defecography in symptomatic older women living at home // Age Ageing. – 2003. – Vol. 32. – Р. 347–350.
14. Sullivan E.S., Leaverton G.H., Hardwick C.E. Transrectal perineal repair: An adjunct to improved function after anorectal surgery // Dis. Colon Rectum. –1968. – Vol. 11. – Р. 106–114.
15. Tjandra J.J. Transanal repair of rectocele corrects obstructed defecation if it is not associated with anismus // Dis. Colon Rectum. – 1999. – Vol. 42. – Р. 1554–1550.
16. Van Laarhoven C.J., Kamm M.A., Bartman C.I. Relationships between anatomic and symptomatic longterm results after rectocele repair impaired defecation // Dis. Colon Rectum. – 1999. – Vol. 42. – Р. 204–209.
Review
For citations:
Shelygin Yu.A., Titov A.Yu., Biryukov O.M., Mudrov A.A., Orlova L.P., Tikhonov A.A., Dzhanayev Yu.A., Voynov M.A. Long-term results of rectocele surgical treatment. Russian Journal of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Coloproctology. 2013;23(4):79-85. (In Russ.)
Views:
112
Email this article 
