PURPOSE: About one-third of the patients with rectal prolapse or rectal intussusception have concurrent enterocele at defecography. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Ripstein procedure on the concurrent enterocele and to study the outcome of the procedure with respect to the patients' symptoms. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with enterocele and either rectal prolapse or rectal intussusception at defecography were treated using the Ripstein procedure. Postoperatively, the patients were evaluated with clinical examination (22 patients) and defecography (16 patients). RESULTS: None of the patients had recurrence of enterocele, rectal prolapse, or intussusception at postoperative follow-up. Continence was improved in 15 of 16 incontinent patients. Emptying difficulties were unchanged in eight patients, improved in five patients, and had deteriorated in four patients. CONCLUSIONS: Enterocele is corrected by using the Ripstein rectopexy. Persisting defecation difficulties after the Ripstein procedure are unlikely to be secondary to enterocele. The Ripstein procedure can be an alternative in the treatment of enterocele, as a majority of these patients also have rectal prolapse or rectal intussusception.
PURPOSE: About one-third of the patients with rectal prolapse or rectal intussusception have concurrent enterocele at defecography. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Ripstein procedure on the concurrent enterocele and to study the outcome of the procedure with respect to the patients' symptoms. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with enterocele and either rectal prolapse or rectal intussusception at defecography were treated using the Ripstein procedure. Postoperatively, the patients were evaluated with clinical examination (22 patients) and defecography (16 patients). RESULTS: None of the patients had recurrence of enterocele, rectal prolapse, or intussusception at postoperative follow-up. Continence was improved in 15 of 16 incontinentpatients. Emptying difficulties were unchanged in eight patients, improved in five patients, and had deteriorated in four patients. CONCLUSIONS: Enterocele is corrected by using the Ripstein rectopexy. Persisting defecation difficulties after the Ripstein procedure are unlikely to be secondary to enterocele. The Ripstein procedure can be an alternative in the treatment of enterocele, as a majority of these patients also have rectal prolapse or rectal intussusception.