Department of Reproductive Medicine, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, California.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Jul;61(7):861-867. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001023.
Pelvic organ prolapse is prevalent among women with rectal prolapse.
This study aimed to determine whether clinically significant pelvic organ prolapse impacts rectal prolapse recurrence after surgical repair.
A retrospective cohort.
This study was performed at a single managed-care institution.
Consecutive women undergoing rectal prolapse repair between 2008 and 2016 were included.
There were no interventions.
Full-thickness rectal prolapse recurrence was compared between 4 groups: abdominal repair without pelvic organ prolapse (AR-POP); abdominal repair with pelvic organ prolapse (AR+POP); perineal repair without pelvic organ prolapse PR-POP; and perineal repair with pelvic organ prolapse (PR+POP). Recurrence-free period and hazard of recurrence were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. To identify potential confounding risk factors for rectal prolapse recurrence, the characteristics of subjects with/without recurrence were compared with univariable and multivariable analyses.
Overall, pelvic organ prolapse was present in 33% of 112 women and was more prevalent among subjects with rectal prolapse recurrence (52.4% vs 28.6%, p = 0.04). Median follow-up was 42.5 months; rectal prolapse recurrence occurred in 18.8% at a median of 9 months. The rate of recurrence and the recurrence-free period differed significantly between groups: AR-POP 3.8%, 95.7 months; AR+POP 13.0%, 86.9 months; PR-POP 34.8%, 42.1 months; PR+POP 57.1%, 23.7 months (p < 0.001). Compared with AR-POP the HR (95% CI) of rectal prolapse recurrence was 3.1 (0.5-18.5) for AR+POP; 14.7 (3.0-72.9) for PR-POP and 31.1 (6.2-154.5) for PR+POP. Compared with AR+POP, PR+POP had a shorter recurrence-free period (p < 0.001) and a higher hazard of recurrence (HR, 10.2; 95% CI, 2.1-49.3).
The retrospective design was a limitation of this study.
Pelvic organ prolapse was associated with a higher rectal prolapse recurrence rate and earlier recurrence in women undergoing perineal, but not abdominal, repairs. Multidisciplinary evaluation can facilitate individualized management of women with rectal prolapse. Abdominal repair should be considered in women with concomitant rectal and pelvic organ prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A513.
直肠前突患者中普遍存在盆腔器官脱垂。
本研究旨在确定临床显著的盆腔器官脱垂是否会影响直肠前突手术后的复发。
回顾性队列研究。
本研究在一家单一的管理式医疗机构进行。
2008 年至 2016 年间连续接受直肠前突修复的女性。
无。
4 组间全层直肠前突复发情况比较:无盆腔器官脱垂的腹式修复(AR-POP);有盆腔器官脱垂的腹式修复(AR+POP);无盆腔器官脱垂的经会阴修复(PR-POP);有盆腔器官脱垂的经会阴修复(PR+POP)。采用 Kaplan-Meier 和 Cox 比例风险方法比较无复发生存期和复发风险。为了确定直肠前突复发的潜在混杂风险因素,采用单变量和多变量分析比较了有/无复发患者的特征。
112 例女性中,总体上 33%存在盆腔器官脱垂,且直肠前突复发者更常见(52.4% vs 28.6%,p = 0.04)。中位随访时间为 42.5 个月;中位 9 个月时,18.8%的患者出现直肠前突复发。各组间复发率和无复发生存期差异显著:AR-POP 3.8%,95.7 个月;AR+POP 13.0%,86.9 个月;PR-POP 34.8%,42.1 个月;PR+POP 57.1%,23.7 个月(p < 0.001)。与 AR-POP 相比,AR+POP 的直肠前突复发风险 HR(95%CI)为 3.1(0.5-18.5);PR-POP 为 14.7(3.0-72.9);PR+POP 为 31.1(6.2-154.5)。与 AR+POP 相比,PR+POP 的无复发生存期更短(p < 0.001),复发风险更高(HR,10.2;95%CI,2.1-49.3)。
本研究的回顾性设计是一个局限性。
在接受经会阴修复的女性中,盆腔器官脱垂与更高的直肠前突复发率和更早的复发相关,但在接受腹式修复的女性中则无此相关性。多学科评估可有助于对直肠前突女性进行个体化治疗。对于同时存在直肠和盆腔器官脱垂的女性,应考虑腹式修复。详见视频摘要,网址:http://links.lww.com/DCR/A513。