OBJECTIVE: Stapled rectal mucosectomy (SM) is less painful than manual haemorrhoidectomy but may be followed by unusual complications which may require reinterventions. The aim of the present study was to report on a particular postoperative complication, the rectal pocket syndrome (RPS). METHODS: Six patients, four females and two males, five with severe proctalgia and signs of intermittent sepsis and one with faecal soiling following SM, underwent clinical examination, proctoscopy (n = 5) anal manometry and ultrasound (n = 4) revealing a painful rectal intramucosal pocket with an endoluminal orifice at the level of the suture line. Four of them underwent a reintervention. RESULTS: At surgery, a faecolyth was found to be entrapped in the rectal pocket with an underlying chronic abscess in four patients. The cavity was laid open and curetted in all cases. One of the females needed a fistulotomy of a low intersphincteric track after one year. In none of the others did endorectal pocketing and abscess or prostatitis recur after a mean follow up of 25 months (range 2-60 months). The male patient still had moderate postevacuation pain and prostatitis possibly via a bacterial translocation after two months. Overall, the incidence of the post mucosectomy RPS at our Units was 2.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The RPS can occur after SM, is likely to be due to a failure of either the purse-string or of the staples causing a suture defect leading to an intramural sinus, and may be successfully treated by a transanal lay-open in most cases.
OBJECTIVE: Stapled rectal mucosectomy (SM) is less painful than manual haemorrhoidectomy but may be followed by unusual complications which may require reinterventions. The aim of the present study was to report on a particular postoperative complication, the rectal pocket syndrome (RPS). METHODS: Six patients, four females and two males, five with severe proctalgia and signs of intermittent sepsis and one with faecal soiling following SM, underwent clinical examination, proctoscopy (n = 5) anal manometry and ultrasound (n = 4) revealing a painful rectal intramucosal pocket with an endoluminal orifice at the level of the suture line. Four of them underwent a reintervention. RESULTS: At surgery, a faecolyth was found to be entrapped in the rectal pocket with an underlying chronic abscess in four patients. The cavity was laid open and curetted in all cases. One of the females needed a fistulotomy of a low intersphincteric track after one year. In none of the others did endorectal pocketing and abscess or prostatitis recur after a mean follow up of 25 months (range 2-60 months). The male patient still had moderate postevacuation pain and prostatitis possibly via a bacterial translocation after two months. Overall, the incidence of the post mucosectomy RPS at our Units was 2.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The RPS can occur after SM, is likely to be due to a failure of either the purse-string or of the staples causing a suture defect leading to an intramural sinus, and may be successfully treated by a transanal lay-open in most cases.