Higher Symptom Score, Larger Residual Rectocele, and Lower Rectal Compliance Predict Failure of Improvement after Surgical Treatment of Rectocele

Q4 Medicine Journal of Coloproctology Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1756146
S. Emile, A. Elfallal, M. Abdelnaby, M. Balata
{"title":"Higher Symptom Score, Larger Residual Rectocele, and Lower Rectal Compliance Predict Failure of Improvement after Surgical Treatment of Rectocele","authors":"S. Emile, A. Elfallal, M. Abdelnaby, M. Balata","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1756146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background Rectocele is a frequent finding in women and is usually asymptomatic. However, it is sometimes associated with symptoms of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). While most patients with ODS due to rectocele respond well to conservative treatment, some may require surgical treatment. The aim of the study was to determine the predictors of failure of symptom improvement after rectocele repair.\n Methods The study included adult women with rectocele who underwent surgical treatment by transperineal repair (TPR) or transvaginal repair (TVR). The preoperative and postoperative assessment was done using the Wexner constipation score, anorectal manometry, and defecography.\n Results A total of 93 female patients with a mean age of 43.7 years were included. Among them, 65.6% of patients underwent TPR and 34.4% underwent TVR; 22 (23.7%) patients reported failure of significant improvement in ODS symptoms after surgery. The independent predictors of failure of improvement were higher preoperative Wexner score (odds ratio, OR: 1.4, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.09–1.84, p = 0.009), larger residual rectocele after repair (OR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.43–6.08, p = 0.003), and lower postoperative maximum tolerable volume (OR: 0.949, 95% CI: 0.907–0.992, p = 0.02). The predictive cutoff point for the preoperative Wexner score was 15.\n Conclusions Patients with a preoperative Wexner score higher than 15 and larger residual rectocele after surgery may experience little improvement in symptoms after rectocele repair. Although TPR was associated with a poorer relief of symptoms than did TVR; it was not an independent predictor of failure.","PeriodicalId":15408,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Coloproctology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Rectocele is a frequent finding in women and is usually asymptomatic. However, it is sometimes associated with symptoms of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). While most patients with ODS due to rectocele respond well to conservative treatment, some may require surgical treatment. The aim of the study was to determine the predictors of failure of symptom improvement after rectocele repair. Methods The study included adult women with rectocele who underwent surgical treatment by transperineal repair (TPR) or transvaginal repair (TVR). The preoperative and postoperative assessment was done using the Wexner constipation score, anorectal manometry, and defecography. Results A total of 93 female patients with a mean age of 43.7 years were included. Among them, 65.6% of patients underwent TPR and 34.4% underwent TVR; 22 (23.7%) patients reported failure of significant improvement in ODS symptoms after surgery. The independent predictors of failure of improvement were higher preoperative Wexner score (odds ratio, OR: 1.4, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.09–1.84, p = 0.009), larger residual rectocele after repair (OR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.43–6.08, p = 0.003), and lower postoperative maximum tolerable volume (OR: 0.949, 95% CI: 0.907–0.992, p = 0.02). The predictive cutoff point for the preoperative Wexner score was 15. Conclusions Patients with a preoperative Wexner score higher than 15 and larger residual rectocele after surgery may experience little improvement in symptoms after rectocele repair. Although TPR was associated with a poorer relief of symptoms than did TVR; it was not an independent predictor of failure.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
较高的症状评分、较大的直肠前突残余和较低的直肠顺应性预示直肠前突手术治疗后改善失败
背景 直肠膨出是女性的常见症状,通常无症状。然而,它有时与排便障碍综合征(ODS)的症状有关。虽然大多数因直肠前突引起的ODS患者对保守治疗反应良好,但有些患者可能需要手术治疗。本研究的目的是确定直肠前突修复后症状改善失败的预测因素。方法 该研究包括接受经会阴修补术(TPR)或经阴道修补术(TVR)手术治疗的患有直肠前突的成年女性。术前和术后评估使用韦克斯纳便秘评分、肛门直肠测压和排粪造影。后果 共有93名女性患者,平均年龄43.7岁。其中,65.6%的患者接受了TPR,34.4%接受了TVR;22名(23.7%)患者报告术后ODS症状未能显著改善。改善失败的独立预测因素是术前Wexner评分较高(比值比,OR:1.4,95%置信区间,CI:1.09-1.84,p = 0.009),修复后残余直肠前突较大(OR:2.95,95%CI:1.43-6.08,p = 0.003),术后最大耐受量较低(OR:0.949,95%CI:0.907–0.992,p = 0.02)。术前Wexner评分的预测截止点为15。结论 术前Wexner评分高于15且术后残留直肠前突较大的患者,在直肠前突修复后症状可能几乎没有改善。尽管TPR与症状缓解相比TVR较差;它不是失败的独立预测因子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Coloproctology
Journal of Coloproctology Medicine-Gastroenterology
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
47 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Salvia officinalis in the Treatment of Acetic Acid-Induced Ulcerative Colitis in a Rat Model Unusual Case of Colonic Intussusception Caused by Angiolipoma: Case Report and Literature Review Vegetating Lesions that Appear in the Scar after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Tumors: Tumor Regrowth or Benign Neoplasm? Retrospective Study of Patients Submitted to Appendectomy in a Tertiary Hospital: Is There a Difference between the Public and Supplementary Health System? Pilonidal Sinus of the Anal Canal: A Rare Entity - Case Report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1