Anorectal Physiology in the Rectal Prolapse Patient

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the physiological spectrum of anorectal dysfunction among patients with full thickness circunferential rectal prolapse. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 1988 and March 1995, 88 patients who visited department colorectal surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida with rectal prolapse were studied. There were 8 males and 80 females, with a mean age 69 (range 28~101) years. Patients underwent a detailed history and the following anorectal physiology tests were performed: anal canal manometry, pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML) assessment, anal electromyography and cinedefecography.4 standard continence scoring system, based on the frequency and type of incontinence (0=full continence, 20=complete incontinence) was used. Patients with rectal prolapse (n=88) were divided into two subgroups: Group I=continent patients (n=33) and Group II= incontinent patients (n=55). RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between each group when comparing mean resting pressures, anal pressures, anal canal length, rectal compliance, rectoanal inhibitory reflex, increased fiber density, the occurrence of premature evacuation (p0.05) between groups. CONCLUSION: Continence may be disturbed in patients with rectal prolapse; knowledge of impairment in continence may assist in surgical management.

Risk Factors of Recurrent Hemorrhoid after Primary Management

Before surgery for hemorrhoid, patients always have a worry of postoperative recurrence. The exact incidence and risk factors of recurrent hemorrhoid have not yet been delineated up to now. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the etiology of the recurrence after surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between March, 1997 and Feburary 1998, all patients who visited the Dept. of Surgery, Korea Veteran Hosipital, due to the recurrent hemorroid after surgical managememt including sclerotherapy(Group II: GII, n=60) were compared to the age and sex mathed(1:2) with primary hemorroid patients(group I: GI, n=120). The risk factors which might be related with the recurrence such as 1) hemorroidal factor(duration of symtom, symtom, associated perinial disease) 2) patient factor (constipation, incontience, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary and hepatic disease) 3) anorectal physiologic factors 4) surgical factors were evaluated. Stastical analysis were performed by a chi-square-test or Mann-Whitney U test and set the significance at p<0.05. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age(GI 58.1+/-8.5, GII 60.9+/-3.3 years), gender(M:F, GI; 97:23, GII; 56:4 ). The ratio of having a contipation before surgery was 41% in GI, 55% in GII. It was not statistically significant. However, the other factors related with constipation such as duration of constipation(GI; 9.85+/-7.73 years, GII; 14.62+/-7.38 years: p<0.05), duration of straining during defecation(GI; 5.82+/-2.34, GII; 7.32+/-5.6 minutes, p<0.05) number of laxative use(GI; 29, GII; 28) were significantly different between the two groups. The fecal incontince are 5% in group Iand 13% in group II. There were no differences in patient's subject symtoms related with hemorrhoid, and comorbid perianal disease between the two groups. In anorectal manometric findings, rectal complince was significantly lower in GII than that of GI(25.1+/-50.04 cc/cmH20 vs 16.0+/-25.2 cc/cmH20 p<0.05). GII has a significant number of preopertive hypertension than GI(6.7% vs. 21.6%, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: When a patient with hemorrhoid has a constipation or hypertension, and lower compliance in manometric findings, it would be related with the postoperative recurrence after treatment. Therefore, we surgeons should correct these comorbid conditions before surgery, otherwise give an information to the patient of high chance of postoperative recurrence after management.

A Prospective Randomized Trial of Open and Closed Hemorrhoidectomies

BACKGROUND: Open and closed hemorrhoidectomies are the most common surgical treatment methods for hemorrhoids. However, the advantages and the disadvantages of each procedure have not yet delineated. PURPOSE: To compare open and close hemorrhoidectomies. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial of open and closed hemorrhoidectomies was performed between January 1997 and July 1997. All patients who underwent consecutive, surgery by a single surgeon (JSJ) for grade III or IV homorrhoids were classified into two groups : Open (GI) and closed (GII) hemorrhoidectomies. For the comparison of each procedure, the duration of the hospital stay, the patients' complaints, the pain score (Grade 1-10), and the complications after surgery were assessed.. Followup data were also obtained by telephone interviews. For the physiologic comparison, the preoperative and the postoperative anorectal manometry results were evaluated. RESULTS: Fortyone (41) patients were underwent hemorrhoidectomies : GI (n=18) and GII (n=23). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of duration of symptoms, degree of hemorrhoid, age, and gender. There were no differences respect to parameters related with postoperative complaints during the hospital stay, such as pain on defecation, skin edema, and anal itching. However, bleeding on defecation (83% in GI vs. 43.5% in GII, p<0.05), and anal soiling (61% in GI vs. 13% in GII, p<0.05) were significantly higher in GI patients. The pain score on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in GI (6.6 vs. 4.9, p<0.05). Other parameters of complications (stricture, 5.7% in GI. vs. 4.3% in GII; defecation difficulty; 5.7% in GI vs. 4.3% in GII; and fecal incontinence; 0% in GI vs. 4.3% in GII) showed no significant differance during the mean followup period of 4.7 months. Neither the mean hospital stay (7 days in GI, 6.2 days in GII) nor the period of complete wound healing (32.7 vs 28.3 days in GI, GII, respectively) was different between the two groups. The preoperative and the postoperative anorectal manometric findings were not different in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The closed hemorrhoidectomy was superior to the open procedures in terms of some parameters such as the pain score on postoperative day 1, bleeding on defecation, and postoperative soiling during the hospital stay. However, the intermediate postoperative outcomes were not different for the two procedures.

Can We Predict the Severity of Fecal Incontinence by Preoperative Physiologic

Many kinds of different treatment options for fecal incontinence such as biofeedback therapy, anterior or posterior sphincteroplasty, pelvic floor repair, gracilis or gluteus muscle transposition have been introduced. However, appropriate indications for these treatment options have not yet been delineated up to now. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to access the preoperative severity of fecal incontinence by physiologic tests to give an idea that indications of appropriate selection criteria and parameters for assess the outcome could be simultaneously considered by preoperatively objective physiologic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 3, 1997 to, August 1, 1997 all patients with fecal incontinence who visited colorectal clinic in the Department of Surgery, Korea Veterans Hospital, were classified into two groups according to the severity of fecal incontinence (0~20): Group I (1~9), Group II (10~20) and compared them with the results of physiologic tests: anorectal manometry, endorectal ultrasound (ERU), cinedefecography, and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML). Statistical analysis was performed by Student's-t test, and Chi-square test and p<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The number of GI was 25, and GII was 22. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age (GI: 57.7+/-14.5, GII: 61.4+/-14.0years), gender (male: female, 19:6, 16:6), cause (neurogenic; 11/25 (GI),7/22(GII), postanal surgery; 6/25,6/22) obstetric trauma (2/25, 2/22), anal trauma (1/25, 1/22) diabetes melitus (1/25, 2/22), rectal prolapse (2/25, 1/22), and others (2/25, 3/22), duration of fecal incontinence (64.4+/-82.2, 48.7+/-65.3 months), high pressure zone (3.3+/-1.7, 3.5+/-1.4 cm), mean resting pressure (50.5+/-27.0, 51.9+/-18.7 cm H2O), maximal resting pressure (88.4+/-50.6, 89.4+/-41.8 cm), maximal squeezing pressure (150.6+/-71.0, 129.7+/-59.5 cm H2O), rectoanal inhibitatory reflex (13/21, 8/21 positive), sensitivity (37.5+/-15.2, 41.8+/-29.0 cc), compliance (19.0+/-14.5, 21.4+/-39.4 cc/cm H2O) in anorectal manometric findings, anal sphincter defect (13/21, 15/22 positive), size of defect (60+/-26.30degrees, 71 +/-30.8degrees/360degrees), thickness of the external anal sphincter (3.46+/-0.78, 3.84 +/-1.02 cm), thickness of internal anal sphincter (1.58+/-0.79, 1.74+/-0.81 cm) in ERU, anorectal angle in rest (85.2+/-28.0degrees, 97+/-22.9degrees), squeeze (72+/-27.1degrees, 82 +/-19.7degrees), push (100+/-43.9degrees, 117.9+/-34.5degrees), length of perineal descent in rest (3.7+/-1.2, 3.6+/-1.7 cm), squeeze (2.9+/-1.5, 2.7+/-1.5 cm), push (7.9+/-3.5, 6.6+/-2.6 cm) in cinedefecography. However, rectal capacity in manometry (212.5+/-99.9, 155+/-51.5 cc, p<0.05), right PNTML (1.73+/-0.39, 2.71+/-0.83 ms, p<0.001), and left PNTML (1.83+/-0.43, 2.94+/-0.80 ms, p<0.001) were significantly increased in GII compare to those of GI. CONCLUSION: As the severity of fecal incontinence was increased, rectal capacity, right and, left PNTML were increased.

Do We Have a Good Patient's Position for Sigmoidoscopy?

Sigmoidscopy is thought to be one of the basest and most essential tools for evaluation of colorectal patient because it could be performed in an out patient clinic with only minimal bowel preparation. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the patient's best position for sigmoidoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March 4, 1997 and April 18, 1997, all patients who visited the colorectal clinic at the Dept. of Surgery, Korea Veterans Hospital were alternately underwent sigmoidoscopy in these four different positions: supine(S), left lateral(L), right lateral(R), and jack-knife(J). Sigmoidocopy was routinely performed for all patients who had lower gastrointestinal problems and was done by two well traind surgeons who had performed more than 100 sigmoidoscopies previously to this study, The patients who could not be tolerate insertion of the total length (60 cm) of the sigmoidoscope due to poor bowel preparation and/or complete obstruction by a mass were excluded. We evaluated the patient's complaints according to minimal, moderate, and severe discomfort and time between start and complete insertion of the 60 cm length of the sigmoidoscope. Statistical analysis was performed by an appropriate Anova test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: There were no differences among these four groups relative to age(5; 58.0+/-12.7, L; 64.3+/-10.0, R; 62.0+/-10.1, J; 56.0+/-12.9), gender(5; 76%, L; 70%, R; 72%, J, 83%,male ratio), degree of discomfort (mild: 42.9% (5), 50% (L), 33.3%(R), 66.7%(J), moderate: 42.9%(5), 34.6%(L),25%(R), 13.3%(J), severe: 14.3%(5), 15.4%(L), 41.7%(R), 20%(J)) and duration of insertion of the sigmoidoscope(5; 264.4 +/-192.9, L; 226.5 +/-267, R; 301.6+/-361.3, J; 202.5 +/-117.8 seconds). Also, there were no statistical significances between the two groups according to the surgeon who performed the procedure. CONCLUSION: The best position for sigmoidoscopy does not depend on the patient's position. Therefore, allowing the patient to change his position during the procedure would be the best way for an easy and comfortable sigmoidscopy.