Vermeidung von Clustering und Urge bei der chirurgischen transanalen Therapie der distalen tiefen Rektozele

Zusammenfassung

Die Behandlung obstruktiver Beschwerden des Anorektums stellt eine Herausforderung dar. Die Vorhersagewahrscheinlichkeit eines Erfolges chirurgischer Maßnahmen ist weiterhin unsicher. Aufgrund der aus dem tiefen Rektum intramural vermittelten Rückmeldesignale und konsekutiver Motilitätsmodulation des Kolorektums können morphologische Veränderungen nicht allein zur Indikationsstellung herangezogen werden. Andererseits gilt es, die Physiologie des enterischen Nervensystems in die Indikationsstellung und Verfahrenswahl mit einzubeziehen. Rektozelen können ein morphologisches Korrelat für eine Outlet-Obstruktion darstellen. Es kann hier nach der Höhenlokalisation in hohe, mittlere und distale Formen unterteilt werden, deren Erscheinungsbild sich in den oberen Dritteln eher flächig darstellt, deren Genese eng mit der Anzahl der Geburten korreliert und die Evaluation der Levatorenschenkeldistanz erforderlich macht. Die distalen tiefen verhaltbildenden Formen finden sich auch bei Nulliparae und haben ihre Ursache in einem transversen Querriss direkt oberhalb der Verankerung des Septums am Perineum. Bei diesen Patientinnen mit ventraler distaler Ventilrektozele überprüften wir die Ergebnisse der Versorgung mittels interner Vollwandraffung und Mukosaresektion im Hinblick auf die Kurz- und Langzeitergebnisse, Komplikationen, ODS-Symptomatik und insbesondere mit der Frage nach der Entstehung von De-novo-Urge oder Clustering. Im Zeitraum zwischen Januar 2009 und Januar 2014 erfolgten 35 Eingriffe bei distalen tiefen symptomatischen ventralen Rektozelen in modifizierter Technik nach Sullivan. Es fanden sich keine intraoperativen oder frühpostoperativen Komplikationen, in den Kontrollen nach 2 Wochen keine Nahtdehiszenzen oder Blutungen, 4 Wochen postoperativ keine Urge-Symptomatik, kein Clustering. In einer Langzeitbefragung (2 – 7 Jahre) postoperativ gaben über 80% an, ihr Operationsergebnis subjektiv dauerhaft positiv zu bewerten. Der mittlere obstruktive Defäkations-Score (ODS) nach Altomare et al. wurde um 9 Punkte reduziert.

Abstract

Discrimination between functional and morphological influences in obstructive defecation syndrome is challenging. The predictability of surgical success is still in discussion. Final understanding of the rectally induced variability in colonic motility is still missing, so that morphological changes cannot solely serve as indication. Finally the physiology of the enteric nervous system has to be taken into account in choosing an approach. A modified Sullivan procedure was tested in the treatment of distal deep rectocele with respect to short- and long-term results for complications, obstructive symptoms and explicitly with regard to urge and clustering complaints. Between January 2009 and January 2014, 35 women complaining of obstructive symptoms with distal deep rectocele were operated on in a modified Sullivan technique. There were no intraoperative nor early postoperative complications; 4 weeks postoperatively no urge or clustering was discovered. In a long-term questionnaire, more than 80% of the patients were satisfied with the procedure; the mean obstructive defecations score was lowered by 9 points.

Schlüsselwörter

Rektozele - ODS - Sullivan - Langzeitergebnisse

Key words

rectocele - ODS - Sullivan - long-term outcome

• Literatur

• 1 Whitehead WE, Wald A, Diamant NE. et al. Functional disorders of the anus and rectum. Gut 1999; 45 (Suppl. 02) II55-II59
• 2 Pomerri F, Zuliani M, Mazza C. et al. Defecographic measurements of rectal intussusception and prolapse in patients and in asymptomatic subjects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 641-645
• 3 Shorvon PJ, McHugh S, Diamant NE. et al. Defecography in normal volunteers: results and implications. Gut 1989; 30: 1737-1749
• 4 Carter D, Gabel MB. Rectocele–does the size matter?. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27: 975-980
• 5 Rachaneni S, Atan IK, Shek KL. et al. Digital rectal examination in the evaluation of rectovaginal septal defects. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28: 1401-1405
• 6 Kamisan Atan I, Lin S, Dietz HP. et al. It is the first birth that does the damage: a cross-sectional study 20 years after delivery. Int Urogynecol J 2018; 29: 1637-1643
• 7 Dietz HP, Clarke B. Prevalence of rectocele in young nulliparous women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 45: 391-394
• 8 Richardson AC. The rectovaginal septum revisited: its relationship to rectocele and its importance in rectocele repair. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1993; 36: 976-983
• 9 Grossi U, Horrocks EJ, Mason J. et al. Surgery for constipation: systematic review and practice recommendations: Results IV: recto-vaginal reinforcement procedures. Colorectal Dis 2017; 19 (Suppl. 03) S73-S91
• 10 Pemberton J, Swash M, Henry M. The pelvic Floor. London: WB Saunders; 2001
• 11 Emmertsen KJ, Laurberg S. Low anterior resection syndrome score: development and validation of a symptom-based scoring system for bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 2012; 255: 922-928
• 12 Vather R, OʼGrady G, Lin AY. et al. Hyperactive cyclic motor activity in the distal colon after colonic surgery as defined by high-resolution colonic manometry. Br J Surg 2018; 105: 907-917
• 13 Delorme R. (Translated by McGill N) Communication sur le traitement des prolapsus du rectum totaux, par lʼexcision de la muqueuse rectale ou rectocolique. Bull Mem Soc Chir Paris 1900; 26: 498-518
• 14 Berman IR, Harris MS, Rabeler MB. Delormeʼs transrectal excision for internal rectal prolapse. Patient selection, technique, and three-year follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 1990; 33: 573-580
• 15 Liberman H, Hughes C, Dippolito A. Evaluation and outcome of the Delorme procedure in the treatment of rectal outlet obstruction. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43: 188-192
• 16 Sullivan ES, Leaverton GH, Hardwick CE. Transrectal perineal repair: an adjunct to improved function after anorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1968; 11: 106-114
• 17 Khubchandani IT, Clancy 3rd JP, Rosen L. et al. Endorectal repair of rectocele revisited. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 89-91
• 18 Altomare DF, Piloni V. et al. Set up and statistical validation of a new scoring system for obstructed defaecation syndrome. Colorectal Dis 2008; 10: 84-88
• 19 Bayliss WM, Starling EH. The movements and innervation of the small intestine. J Physiol 1899; 24: 99-143
• 20 Spencer NJ, Hibberd TJ, Travis L. et al. Identification of a rhythmic firing pattern in the enteric nervous system that generates rhythmic electrical activity in smooth muscle. J Neurosci 2018; 38: 5507-5522
• 21 Rao SS, Welcher K. Periodic rectal motor activity: the intrinsic colonic gatekeeper?. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91: 890-897
• 22 Dinning PG. Recording in vivo human colonic motility: what have we learnt over the past 100 years?. Adv Exp Med Biol 2016; 891: 213-222
• 23 Bampton PA, Dinning PG. High resolution colonic manometry–what have we learnt?–A review of the literature 2012. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2013; 15: 328
• 24 Sarna SK. Colonic Motility: From Bench Side to Bedside. San Rafael (CA): Morgan & Claypool Life Sciences; 2010
• 25 Dinning PG, Hunt LM, Arkwright JW. et al. Pancolonic motor response to subsensory and suprasensory sacral nerve stimulation in patients with slow-transit constipation. Br J Surg 2012; 99: 1002-1010
• 26 Lin AY, Du P, Dinning PG. et al. High-resolution anatomic correlation of cyclic motor patterns in the human colon: evidence of a rectosigmoid brake. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2017; 312: G508-G515
• 27 Klauser AG, Voderholzer WA, Heinrich CA. et al. Behavioral modification of colonic function. Can constipation be learned?. Dig Dis Sci 1990; 35: 1271-1275
• 28 Nieminen K, Hiltunen KM, Laitinen J. et al. Transanal or vaginal approach to rectocele repair: a prospective, randomized pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47: 1636-1642
• 29 Farid F, Madbouly KM, Hussein A. et al. Randomized controlled trial between perineal and anal repairs of rectocele in obstructed defecation. World J Surg 2010; 34: 822-829
• 30 Kahn MA, Stanton SL. Posterior colporrhaphy: its effect on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 82-86
• 31 Paraiso MF, Weber AM, Walters MD. et al. Anatomic and functional outcome after posterior colporrhaphy. J Pelvic Surg 2001; 7: 335-339
• 32 Frascio M, Stabilini C, Ricci B. et al. Stapled transanal rectal resection for outlet obstruction syndrome: results and follow-up. World J Surg 2008; 32: 1110-1115
• 33 Leanza V, Intagliata E, Leanza G. Surgical repair of rectocele. Comparison of transvaginal and transanal approach and personal technique. G Chir 2013; 34: 332-336
• 34 Lefevre R, Davila GW. Functional disorders: rectocele. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2008; 21: 129-137
• 35 Stanford E, Moen M. Patient safety communication form the Food and Drug Administration regarding transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 18: 689-691
• 36 Karasick S, Ehrlich SM. Is constipation a disorder of defecation or impaired motility?: distinction based on defecography and colonic transit studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 63-66