Purpose: Stapled anastomotic techniques to the distal rectum have gained widespread acceptance due to their procedural advantages. Various modifications in the stapling techniques have evolved since their inception. The triple-staple technique utilizing stapled closure of both the proximal colon and distal rectal stump provides a rapid and secure colorectal anastomosis. The aims of this study were to determine the safety and efficacy of the triple-staple technique and to compare the clinical outcomes with a historical control group for which the conventional double-staple technique had been performed. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients operated on by a single surgeon were included in the study; 50 patients who underwent a double-staple (DSA) procedure and 50 patients undergoing triple-staple anastomosis (TSA). Results: The most common indication for surgery in both groups was rectal cancer followed by diverticular disease and distal sigmoid cancer. There was no significant difference in number of patients requiring loop ileostomy formation in the groups (TSA, 56.0% vs. DSA, 68.0%; P = 0.621). The mean operating time for the TSA group was significantly shorter compared to that of the DSA group (TSA, 242.8 minutes vs. DSA, 306.1 minutes; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in complication rate (TSA, 40% vs. DSA, 50%; P = 0.315) or length of hospital stay between the two groups (TSA, 11.3 days vs. DSA, 13.0 days; P = 0.246). Postoperative complications included anastomotic leak, prolonged ileus, bleeding, wound infection, and pelvic collection. Conclusion The triple-staple technique is a safe alternative to double-staple anastomosis after anterior resection and effectively shortens operating time.

Purpose: Rectocele can be associated with both obstructed defecation and fecal incontinence. There exists a great variety of operative techniques to treat patients with rectocele. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome in a consecutive series of patients who underwent transperineal repair of rectocele when presenting with fecal incontinence as the predominant symptom. Methods: Twenty-three consecutive patients from April 2000 to July 2015 with symptomatic rectocele underwent transperineal repair by a single surgeon. Results: All patients had a history of vaginal delivery, with or without evidence of associated anal sphincter injury at the time. The median age of the cohort was 53 years (range, 21–90 years). None were fully continent preoperatively. However, continence improved to just rare mucus soiling or loss of flatus in all patients 6 months after their surgery. There was no operative mortality. Postoperative complications including urinary retention and wound dehiscence occurred in 3 patients. Conclusion Fecal incontinence associated with rectocele is multifactorial and may be caused by preexisting anal sphincteric damage and attenuation. Our experience suggests that transperineal repair provides excellent anatomic and physiologic results with minimal morbidity in selected patients presenting with combined rectocele and anal sphincter defect.