Abdominal resection rectopexy with an absorbable polyglactin mesh: prospective evaluation of morphological and functional changes with consecutive improvement of patient's symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of rectal prolapse and intussusception has not yet been clarified. This is reflected in the multiplicity of surgical procedures. The aim of this prospective study was to measure morphological and functional changes of the pelvic floor and the rectum before and after resection rectopexy. METHODS: A total of 21 patients (mean age 60 years; 2 men, 19 women) with manifest rectal prolapse and rectoanal intussusception underwent sigmoidectomy and rectopexy with an absorbable polyglactin mesh graft. The following analyses were performed preoperatively and, on average, 15 months (range 6-21 month) postoperatively: radiologic defecography, rectal volumetry, sphincter manometry, and evaluation of clinical symptoms. RESULTS: Postoperatively there was no patient with rectal prolapse, and only one with an intussusception. Rectal compliance increased from 6.4 to 10.2 ml/mmHg. Rectal volumetry showed a decrease of the thresholds for the sensation of "desire to defecate" and "maximal tolerated volume" (100-75 ml, 175-150 ml). Postoperatively, there was a higher level of the pelvic floor during contraction. The anorectal angle, vector volume, radial asymmetry, sphincter length, and resting and squeezing pressures were unchanged. Surgery improved rectal evacuation (p = 0.03), continence (p = 0.01), stool consistency (p = 0.03), and warning period (p = 0.01). Patients' personal assessment showed an improved overall satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Resection rectopexy is a reliable method for treating rectal prolapse and rectoanal intussusception with clear improvement of the patient's clinical symptoms. The restored anorectal function can be attributed to improved rectal compliance, a lower sensory threshold, an elevation of the pelvic floor during squeezing, and an improved rectal evacuation.

Staging anal cancer: prospective comparison of transanal endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

PURPOSE: The staging of anal cancer is extremely important for therapy and prognosis. Transanal endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are routinely applied. The aim of this prospective comparative study is to evaluate whether tumor staging is concordant between these techniques. METHODS: Forty-five anal cancer patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Histological confirmation was obtained in all patients. The two test methods were compared with the kappa concordance index and sensitivity for the initial method of tumor detection was calculated. For six patients who were operated upon because of tumor progression, the results were evaluated against the histological tumor stage. RESULTS: High concordance was found in the assessment of tumor size and nodal status (kappa index 0.63 and 0.77). Cancer patients were correctly identified with 100% sensitivity (45/45) by endoscopic ultrasound and with 88.9% (40/45) sensitivity by magnetic resonance imaging. In the six operated patients, T stage was correctly assessed in four of six patients by endoscopic ultrasound and in three of six patients by magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSION: The results of endoscopic ultrasound strongly coincide with those of magnetic resonance imaging. Endoscopic ultrasound may be superior to magnetic resonance imaging for detection of small superficial tumors. However, magnetic resonance imaging is needed for N staging.