[Transperineal repair of rectocele with prosthetic mesh. A prospective study].

PURPOSE: To assess the long term results of a transperineal repair of rectocele with a prosthetic mesh and the criteria for selecting the patients.

METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients (median age: 60 years) with a symptom-giving rectocele have been operated upon. Indication for surgery was: an obstructed defecation (N = 22); a fecal incontinence (N = 1); a pelvic heaviness with dyspareunia (N = 1) or a severe rectal syndrome (N = 1). Patients were evaluated by physical examination and, preoperatively, by defecography and anorectal manometry. The rectovaginal septum was repaired, through a perineal approach, with an absorbable (N = 5) or non absorbable (N = 20) prosthetic mesh. Long term results were assessed after a median follow-up of 45 (range 12-120) months by physical examination and a standardized questionnaire. The presence of the following three symptoms was evaluated: feeling of incomplete emptying, prolonged and unsuccessful straining at stool, digital assistance. Outcome was considered as successful when none of these symptoms were present, as good when minor emptying difficulties persisted, as moderate when emptying difficulties were associated with straining, as a failure when the symptomatic triad was unchanged. A general satisfaction score was established.

RESULTS: All the patients had the defect of the rectovaginal septum corrected. Four patients had a low residual rectocele associated, in two cases, with a rectal prolapse subsequently treated by a Delorme's operation. Outcome in patients complaining of obstructed defecation was considered excellent or good in 80% of patients, moderate in 9% and poor in 9%. Subjective scoring showed a significantly better result in cases of success. Among 11 incontinent patients, seven (63.5%) improved or regained full continence. Dyspareunia in three cases was corrected. Age, parity, digital assistance, previous gynecologic surgery, use of laxatives, size of rectocele, type of mesh, anatomical result of repair had no significant prognostic value. On the other hand, in patients with obstructed defecation, clinical and manometric signs of anal hyperactivity of the pelvic floor or anismus (N = 4) were significantly related to a poor result (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Surgical repair with a prosthetic mesh is an efficient therapy in patients with obstructed defecation and/or incontinence caused by a rectocele. Clinical and defecographic parameters have no influence on outcome. Preoperative manometric data may help in selecting patients. In case of anal hyperactivity or anismus, given the risk of functional failure, behavioral retraining must be considered as first-line treatment.