Advertisement

Post-operative clinical, manometric, and defecographic findings in patients undergoing unsuccessful STARR operation for obstructed defecation

  • A. PicciarielloEmail author
  • V. Papagni
  • G. Martines
  • M. De Fazio
  • R. Digennaro
  • D. F. Altomare
Original Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the reason for failure of STARR (stapled transanal rectal resection) operation for obstructed defecation.

Methods

A retrospective study (June 2012–December 2017) was performed using a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent STARR operation for ODS (obstructed defecation syndrome), complaining of persisting or de novo occurrence of pelvic floor dysfunctions. Postoperative St Mark’s and ODS scores were evaluated. A VAS was used to score pelvic pain. Patients’ satisfaction was estimated administering the CPGAS (clinical patient grading assessment scale) questionnaire. Objective evaluation was performed by dynamic proctography and anorectal manometry.

Results

Ninety patients (83.3% females) operated for ODS using STARR technique were evaluated.

Median ODS score was 19 while 20 patients (22%) reported de novo fecal urgency and 4 patients a worsening of their preoperative fecal incontinence.

Dynamic proctography performed in 54/90 patients showed a significant (> 3.0 cm) rectocele in 19 patients, recto-rectal intussusception in 10 patients incomplete emptying in 24 patients. When compared with internal normal standards, anorectal manometry showed decreased rectal compliance and maximum tolerable volume in patients with urgency. Nine patients reported a persistent postoperative pelvic pain (median VAS score 6).

Conclusion

Failure of STARR to treat ODS, documented by persisting ODS symptoms, fecal urgency, or chronic pelvic pain, is often justified by the persistence or de novo onset of alteration of the anorectal anatomy at defecation. This occurs in about half of the patients, but in 40% of the cases who complained of incomplete emptying or incontinence, anatomical abnormalities were not recognized.

Keywords

Obstructed defecation STARR Defecography Anal manometry Fecal incontinence Fecal urgency 

Notes

Authors contribution

Arcangelo Picciariello, MD: conception and design of the study, acquisition analysis and interpretation of data, writing the paper, and final approval of the version to be published

Vincenzo Papagni, MD: acquisition analysis and interpretation of the data,and final approval of the version to be published

Gennaro Martines, MD: acquisition analysis and interpretation of the data, and final approval of the version to be published

Michele De Fazio, MD: acquisition analysis and interpretation of the data, and final approval of the version to be published

Rosa Digennaro, MD: acquisition analysis and interpretation of the data, and final approval of the version to be published

Prof Donato F. Altomare, MD: aonception and design of the study, interpretation of the results, writing the paper, and final approval of the version to be published

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Podzemny V, Pescatori LC, Pescatori M (2015) Management of obstructed defecation. World J Gastroenterol 21:1053–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsar’komhtv PV, Sandrikov VA, Tulina IA et al (2012) Surgical treatment of rectocele with the use of mesh implants by the obstructive defecation syndrome. Khirurgiia (Mosk) 8:25–33Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karlbom U, Nilsson S, Pahlman L et al (1999) Defecographic study of rectal evacuation in constipated patients and control subjects. Radiology 210:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pescatori M, Spyrou M, Pulvirenti d’Urso A (2007) A prospective evaluation of occult disorders in obstructed defecation using the ‘iceberg diagram’. Color Dis 9:452–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zehler O, Vashist YK, Bogoevski D et al (2010) Quo vadis STARR? A prospective long-term follow-up of stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation syndrome. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1349–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwandner O, Furst A, German SRSG (2010) Assessing the safety, effectiveness, and quality of life after the STARR procedure for obstructed defecation: results of the German STARR registry. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 395:505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pomerri F, Zuliani M, Mazza C et al (2001) Defecographic measurements of rectal intussusception and prolapse in patients and in asymptomatic subjects. Am J Roentgenol 176:641–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Altomare DF (2010) ODS score and obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 53:363 author reply 363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA et al (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44:77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heckert J, Sankineni A, Hughes WB, Harbison S, Parkman H (2016) Gastric electric stimulation for refractory gastroparesis: a prospective analysis of 151 patients at a single center. Dig Dis Sci 61(1):168–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martelli H, Devroede G, Arhan P et al (1978) Mechanisms of idiopathic constipation: outlet obstruction. Gastroenterology 75:623–631Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Talley NJ, Weaver AL, Zinsmeister AR et al (1993) Functional constipation and outlet delay: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 105:781–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwandner O, Stuto A, Jayne D et al (2008) Decision-making algorithm for the STARR procedure in obstructed defecation syndrome: position statement of the group of STARR pioneers. Surg Innov 15:105–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang B, Ding JH, Yin SH et al (2010) Stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectocele and rectal intussusception. World J Gastroenterol 16:2542–2548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dodi G, Pietroletti R, Milito G et al (2003) Bleeding, incontinence, pain and constipation after STARR transanal double stapling rectotomy for obstructed defecation. Tech Coloproctol 7:148–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gagliardi G, Pescatori M, Altomare DF et al (2008) Results, outcome predictors, and complications after stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 51:186–195 discussion 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naldini G (2011) Serious unconventional complications of surgery with stapler for haemorrhoidal prolapse and obstructed defaecation because of rectocoele and rectal intussusception. Color Dis 13:323–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Nardi P, Bottini C, Faticanti Scucchi L et al (2007) Proctalgia in a patient with staples retained in the puborectalis muscle after STARR operation. Tech Coloproctol 11:353–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jayne DG, Schwandner O, Stuto A (2009) Stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation syndrome: one-year results of the European STARR Registry. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1205–1212 discussion 1212–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Madbouly KM, Abbas KS, Hussein AM (2010) Disappointing long-term outcomes after stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation. World J Surg 34:2191–2196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kohler K, Stelzner S, Hellmich G et al (2012) Results in the long-term course after stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR). Langenbeck's Arch Surg 397:771–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schiano di Visconte M, Nicoli F, Pasquali A et al (2018) Clinical outcomes of stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) for obstructed defaecation syndrome at 10-year follow-up. Color Dis 20:614–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim M, Meurette G, Lehur PA (2016) Obstructed defecation: STARR or rectopexy? Color Dis 18:438–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grassi R, Romano S, Micera O et al (2005) Radiographic findings of post-operative double stapled trans anal rectal resection (STARR) in patient with obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Eur J Radiol 53:410–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dindo D, Weishaupt D, Lehmann K et al (2008) Clinical and morphologic correlation after stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructed defecation syndrome. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1768–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schwandner T, Hecker A, Hirschburger M et al (2011) Does the STARR procedure change the pelvic floor: a preoperative and postoperative study with dynamic pelvic floor MRI. Dis Colon Rectum 54:412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Piloni V, Possanzini M, Bergamasco M et al (2017) Postoperative MR defecography following failed STARR procedure for obstructive defecation syndrome: a three-centre experience. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017:4392918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Faucheron JL, Barot S, Collomb D et al (2014) Dynamic cystocolpoproctography is superior to functional pelvic MRI in the diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders: results of a prospective study. Color Dis 16:O240–O247CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation and Inter-Department Research Center for Pelvic Floor Diseases (CIRPAP)University “Aldo Moro” of BariBariItaly

Personalised recommendations