1 / 32

EXternal Pelvic REctal SuSpension Using Permacol Implant The ‘Express’ Procedure

EXternal Pelvic REctal SuSpension Using Permacol Implant The ‘Express’ Procedure. P Giordano ACOI 2005. Rectal intussusception (RI). Definition full-thickness descent of the rectal wall Mellgren et al ., 1994 Felt-Bersma & Cuesta, 2001 Recto-rectal Recto-anal.

hayfa-holland
Télécharger la présentation

EXternal Pelvic REctal SuSpension Using Permacol Implant The ‘Express’ Procedure

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EXternal Pelvic REctal SuSpension Using Permacol Implant The ‘Express’ Procedure P Giordano ACOI 2005

  2. Rectal intussusception (RI) • Definition • full-thickness descent of the rectal wall • Mellgren et al., 1994 • Felt-Bersma & Cuesta, 2001 • Recto-rectal • Recto-anal

  3. Commonly diagnosed at evacuation proctography

  4. Surgical treatment of Rectal Intussusception • Abdominal approach • Perineal approach

  5. Abdominal procedures • Abdominal rectopexy is the preferred technique • full rectal mobilisation • potential morbidity • high rate of post-operative constipation • variable results • anatomy vs. symptoms Schultz et al., 1996 Schultz et al., 2000 Johansson et al., 1985

  6. Perineal procedures • Intra-rectal Délorme’s • rectal mucosectomy / vertical plication of the rectal wall • technically demanding • low morbidity • functional results • 60 - 70% improved evacuatory symptoms • faecal continence improved in minority • recurrence unknown Berman et al., 1985, 1990, Sielezneff et al., 1999, Liberman et al., 2000

  7. Intussusception and Rectocoele • RI and rectocoele frequently co-exist • Choi et al., 2001 • RI often seen to block rectocoele • Rectopexy fails to deal with a co-existent rectocoele Rectocoele Obstructed Rectocoele Recal Intussusception

  8. Treatment of Rectocoele } The conventional approach is to consider rectocoele as merely a weakness in the rectovaginal septum • Trans-anal / trans-vaginal / STARR • Trans-perineal mesh repair procedures • Functional outcome • 40% to 90% success rate • Kenton et al., 1999 • Lopez et al., 2001 • Recurrence rate • up to 50% • Tjandra et al., 2001

  9. EXternal Pelvic REctal SuSpensionThe ‘Express’ procedureNSWilliams, LS Dvorkin, P Giordano et al. Br J Surg 2005;92:598-604Aim • To develop a minimally invasive perineal procedure to correct RI + rectocoele • Using an acellular porcine collagen implant (Permacol™)

  10. Inclusion Criteria: Circumferential / full-thickness RI Symptoms consistent with physiological findings Failed maximal conservative therapy Rectocoele > 2 cm and retains neo-stool Exclusion Criteria: Organic disease Delayed colonic transit Rectal hyposensitivity Overt rectal prolapse <18 years old Patient Selection

  11. Clinical and physiological assessment • Clinical symptom questionnaires • GIQOL Index • SF36-v2 • Intussusception symptom score • Comprehensive anorectal physiological investigation • stationary pull-through manometry • rectal sensory thresholds • PNTML • EAUS • evacuation proctography • Post-operative assessment at 6 months

  12. Operative details Transversus perineii retracted upwards Anterior rectal wall Puborectalis

  13. Results of the ‘Express’ procedure

  14. Demographics • N = 17 (13 F) • Median age 47 years (20 – 67) • Median follow-up 12months (6 - 20) • 13 (all F) had concomitant rectocoele repair

  15. Morbidity

  16. Morbidity • Vaginal perforation (n = 2) • Anterior rectal wall perforation (n = 3) • 1 sepsis and subsequent stoma

  17. Functional outcome: clinical symptom score * Wilcoxon signed rank test (n=15)

  18. Functional outcome: quality of life score * Wilcoxon signed rank test (n=15)

  19. Anatomical outcome: RI 6 normal

  20. Anatomical outcome: rectocoele(n = 11) 8 = normal 3 = persistent

  21. Conclusion • The “Express” procedure is a safe and effective surgical option for rectal intussusception and rectocoele in patients with evacuatory symptoms

  22. Defecation should be natural

  23. Rectal intussusception and Rectocoele Point of ‘take-off’ ARJ

  24. Aids to evacuation

  25. SRUS • 6 months after surgery, ulcers had healed in both patients

  26. Faecal incontinence • Preoperatively • Faecal incontinence: 5 (29%) • Faecal urgency: 2 • Passive leakage of mucus: 2 • Postoperatively • 1 became fully continent and 1 developed PFL • Faecal urgency unchanged • Passive leakage of mucus resolved in 1 patient

  27. Anorectal physiological investigation

  28. Functional outcome vs. proctographic findings • There were no significant differences in functional outcome scores between those with and those without postoperative intussuscepta

  29. Evacuatory dynamics

More Related