Comparison of Rectoanal Physiologic Changes and Treatment Results between Transanal Repair and Transanal Repair with Posterior Colporrhaphy in Patients with Rectocele.
- Author:
Joo Hyung KIM
1
;
Young Min KWON
;
Yong Pyo LEE
Author Information
1. Hanvit Colorectal Clinic, Suwon, Korea. surgeons@hanvithospital.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Rectocele;
Transanal rectocele repair;
Posterior colporrhaphy
- MeSH:
Defecation;
Humans;
Rectocele*;
Recurrence;
Sensation
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology
2004;20(2):86-92
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Rectoceles are often associated with anorectal symptoms. Various surgical techniques have been described to repair rectoceles, but the surgical results vary. The aim of this study was to compare transanal repair (TAR) and transanal repair with posterior colporrhaphy (TAR+PC). METHODS: The records of 58 patients operated on during a 56-month period were reviewed. Of those 26 patients had a TAR, and 32 patients had a TAR+PC. Interviews and anorectal physiologic studies were performed preoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: The recurrence rate after a TAR+PC was lower than the recurrence rate after a TAR (TAR 19.2% vs. TAR+PC 3.1%). The rectal sensation (sensory threshold: TAR 64.8+/-18.9 ml vs. TAR+PC 56.1+/-23.67 ml; earliest defecation urge: TAR 116.4+/-29.5 ml vs. TAR+PC 104.8+/-31.2 ml) was more improved after a TAR+PC. CONCLUSIONS: A TAR+PC for treatment of a rectocele is safe and effectively corrects obstructed defecation. The improvement probably relates, at least in part, to rectal sensational factors other than the dimensions of the rectocele.
