BACKGROUND: Rectal internal mucosal prolapse (RIMP) may cause obstructed defaecation and encouraging short-term results have been reported after its transanal excision. The objective of this retrospective study was to assess both clinical and functional outcome after this procedure alone for patients presenting with evacuatory difficulty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients (30 females, mean age 54 years), all suffering from obstructed defaecation, underwent RIMP excision at our unit during the last 11 years. RIMP was of first degree in three patients, of second degree in 21, and of third degree in 16 with 28/40 cases (70%) having associated anorectal pathology. The operation was carried out by hand suture (submucosal excision, Sarles endorectal excision, or the Delorme mucosectomy) in 26 patients, by circular stapled prolapsectomy in nine patients, or by combined manual and stapled techniques in five cases. Proctoscopy was carried out after 2 months for all patients, with anorectal manometry in 30 patients. Patients were independently assessed by state-trait anxiety scales for attendant anxiety and depression. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (45%) had significant postoperative complications with a surgical reintervention rate of 32.5%. Overall, 21 patients (52%) reported recurrent constipation and of these 14 (65%) had recurrent RIMP; six patients were treated successfully by rubber-band ligation alone. Two patients (5%) experienced new onset faecal incontinence. The recurrence rate of RIMP was unaffected by the type of operation, being 53% after manual techniques and 48% after combined procedures. There was no difference between postoperative manometric values in patients presenting with recurrent RIMP or constipation compared with those without RIMP or constipation on follow-up. Forty-eight percent of the patients with both recurrent constipation plus RIMP had manometric evidence of non-relaxing puborectalis syndrome compared with 26% with RIMP but without constipation (P<0.05). Ten of the 14 patients (71%) with anxiety and/or depression complained of recurrent constipation after surgery compared with nine of the 26 patients (24%) with normal psychological profiles (P<0.01). Patients with a preoperative rectocele were more likely to suffer from recurrent constipation than those without rectocele (eight out of 15, 53.3% vs. seven out of 25, 28%; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Primary excision of RIMP does not seem an effective treatment for obstructed defecation with predictive factors for an adverse outcome in terms of recurrence (RIMP and constipation) including the presence of preoperative non-relaxing puborectalis syndrome and a demonstrated anxiety or depression psychological profile. The technique of prolapsectomy does not seem to affect outcome.
BACKGROUND: Rectal internal mucosal prolapse (RIMP) may cause obstructed defaecation and encouraging short-term results have been reported after its transanal excision. The objective of this retrospective study was to assess both clinical and functional outcome after this procedure alone for patients presenting with evacuatory difficulty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients (30 females, mean age 54 years), all suffering from obstructed defaecation, underwent RIMP excision at our unit during the last 11 years. RIMP was of first degree in three patients, of second degree in 21, and of third degree in 16 with 28/40 cases (70%) having associated anorectal pathology. The operation was carried out by hand suture (submucosal excision, Sarles endorectal excision, or the Delorme mucosectomy) in 26 patients, by circular stapled prolapsectomy in nine patients, or by combined manual and stapled techniques in five cases. Proctoscopy was carried out after 2 months for all patients, with anorectal manometry in 30 patients. Patients were independently assessed by state-trait anxiety scales for attendant anxiety and depression. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (45%) had significant postoperative complications with a surgical reintervention rate of 32.5%. Overall, 21 patients (52%) reported recurrent constipation and of these 14 (65%) had recurrent RIMP; six patients were treated successfully by rubber-band ligation alone. Two patients (5%) experienced new onset faecal incontinence. The recurrence rate of RIMP was unaffected by the type of operation, being 53% after manual techniques and 48% after combined procedures. There was no difference between postoperative manometric values in patients presenting with recurrent RIMP or constipation compared with those without RIMP or constipation on follow-up. Forty-eight percent of the patients with both recurrent constipation plus RIMP had manometric evidence of non-relaxing puborectalis syndrome compared with 26% with RIMP but without constipation (P<0.05). Ten of the 14 patients (71%) with anxiety and/or depression complained of recurrent constipation after surgery compared with nine of the 26 patients (24%) with normal psychological profiles (P<0.01). Patients with a preoperative rectocele were more likely to suffer from recurrent constipation than those without rectocele (eight out of 15, 53.3% vs. seven out of 25, 28%; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Primary excision of RIMP does not seem an effective treatment for obstructed defecation with predictive factors for an adverse outcome in terms of recurrence (RIMP and constipation) including the presence of preoperative non-relaxing puborectalis syndrome and a demonstrated anxiety or depression psychological profile. The technique of prolapsectomy does not seem to affect outcome.