Contemporary Surgery

How stapled resection can treat rectal prolapse

Associate Director of Clinical Research

Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH

First introduced in 2004 for treatment of obstructed defecation secondary to outlet dysfunction,¹ stapled transanal rectal resection, also called STARR (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH), has since been used for internal rectal prolapse and rectocele. Early results have been encouraging, but more evaluation is needed.

The procedure is mostly used in the management of outlet dysfunction after medical therapy has failed. This article reviews the state of the procedure—the indications and contraindications, and surgical technique.

  When STARR is appropriate

Anatomical abnormalities such as rectal intussusception or prolapse, or rectocele with outlet dysfunction, provide a rationale for the procedure.

However, the patient may not always manifest an anatomical cause. In such a case, pain, a sensation of fullness, sense of incomplete defecation, bulging secondary to rectocele, and straining can comprise a symptom complex termed pelvic floor dyssynergia. The exact mechanism is poorly understood, so a number of techniques have been used in its management.

When a structural abnormality that could explain outlet dysfunction is detected, STARR may help in reducing maximum tolerable volume and rectal compliance. Surgical correction can interrupt the rectoanal inhibitory reflex the prolapsing bowel can cause.

How outlet dysfunction occurs

The patient may have an uncoordinated inhibitory pattern, progressing from the pubococcygeus to the puborectalis muscle or external sphincter, or both.² This patient may benefit from biofeedback. When the internal intussusception extends to the anal canal, described as internal prolapse, sometimes combined with rectocele, surgery may provide a resolution.

Differentiating the type of rectal prolapse is important to ensure the appropriate treatment. The key types are:

• Internal (hidden or occult) prolapse, or intussusception, occurs when the rectum intussuscepts but does not pass beyond the anal canal.

• Mucosal prolapse results from loosening of the submucosal attachments to the muscularis propria of the distal rectum. It may present with hemorrhoidal disease.

• Complete rectal prolapse, or procidentia, is a full-thickness protrusion of the wall of the rectum through the anal sphincters.

• Internal mucosal prolapse. Various grades of severity exist,³ and circumferential prolapse may be a key cause of evacuatory difficulty.^4,5 Its pathophysiologic relationship to full-thickness rectal prolapse and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS), however, is controversial.

  The surgeon’s options

Options for prolapse include abdominal procedures, such as rectopexy and resection rectopexy, Delorme’s excision (resection of the redundant mucosal sleeve via a perineal approach), and a perineal proctosigmoidectomy or Altemeier procedure. In the patient with internal rectal prolapse, the limited degree of tissue intussusception precludes perineal proctectomy.

Transanal, transperineal, and transvaginal approaches may also help manage rectocele. Psychological factors such as anxiety and depression can contribute to symptoms, so selecting a therapy for a specific patient can be difficult.⁶

STARR involves resection of the full thickness of the rectal wall with the transanal application of two circular staplers—one placed anteriorly, the other posteriorly.

  Evaluating the patient

The preoperative examination for STARR includes evaluating sphincter function for rectocele, intussusception, perineal descent, and anal prolapse. Colonoscopy or barium enema would rule out other pathology.

Defecography can demonstrate associated anatomic abnormalities. Dynamic MRI is an alternative. Authors have questioned the use of defecography because it shows rectal intussusception is a common finding, even in normal patients,⁷ and can reveal insignificant abnormalities.⁸

Other options, depending on symptoms, can include vaginography, transit study, anal manometry (rectal compliance or capacity, electromyography [EMG], and voiding cystourethrogram), and gynecologic or urologic pelvic assessment.

Indications for STARR

The Consensus Conference on the Stapled Transanal Rectal Resection described these characteristic symptoms as potential indications for the procedure:⁹

• Prolonged or repeated straining during evacuation.

• Frequent calls to defecate before or after evacuation.

• Digital means to effect evacuation.

• Laxative or enema use, or both.

• Sensation of incomplete evacuation.

• Excessive time spent in the toilet.

• Pelvic pressure, rectal discomfort, and perineal pain that have failed prior conservative treatment.

Contraindications

Exclusion criteria for the procedure are:

• External full-thickness rectal prolapse (procidentia).

• Perineal infection (abscess, fistula).

• Rectovaginal fistula.

• Inflammatory bowel disease (including proctitis).

• Radiation proctitis.

• Anal incontinence (Wexner Score more than 7).⁹

• Anal stenosis precluding insertion of the stapling device.

• Enterocele at rest.

• Significant gynecological or urinary pelvic floor abnormality requiring combined treatment.

• Foreign material such as mesh adjacent the rectum.

• Absence of anatomical or physiological abnormality associated with outlet dysfunction syndrome.

• Intraoperative technical factors that preclude a safe operation.

• Severe rectal or perirectal fibrosis.

• Prior rectal anastomosis.

  Operative technique

Before the procedure, the patient is given an enema and begins antibiotic prophylaxis. The patient is placed in the lithotomy position. The surgeon uses the specialized circular stapling device with a disposable circular anal dilator.

Introducing the dilator

The anal verge is progressively dilated with 2 fingers for 60 seconds and 4 radial stitches are placed on the perineal skin to gain better exposure. The lubricated obturator of the dilator is introduced then left in place for 60 seconds. Finally, the lubricated dilator is introduced into the anal canal and retained in place by securing the previously applied sutures (FIGURE 1).

A spatulated retractor placed through the lower opening of the anal dilator into the anal canal protects the posterior wall of the rectum (FIGURE 2). Inserting gauze facilitates prolapse of the rectal mucosa. The gauze is then withdrawn gradually.

Applying the sutures

Three 2-0 prolene purse-string sutures are placed at the apex of the prolapse at 10, 12, and 2 o’clock traversing the mucosa, submucosa, and rectal muscle wall over half the rectal circumference. The circular stapler is then introduced into the rectum and the open head is positioned above the most proximal suture.

Traction applied to the sutures prolapses the rectal wall into the stapler, which is then discharged to incorporate the shelf the previously placed sutures created (FIGURE 3). Before firing, fingers placed into the vagina help prevent entrapment of the posterior vaginal wall into the stapler. Including the posterior rectal wall into the staple line is also carefully avoided. The stapler is then gently withdrawn.

Posterior application

The procedure is then repeated on the posterior rectal wall (FIGURE 4) with the retractor placed in the upper opening of the dilator and the 3 sutures in the residual prolapse of the posterior circumference.

Hemostatic sutures are placed incorporating the staple line anteriorly and posteriorly. When firing the stapler, the surgeon must take care to avoid tissue overload, which can divide the tissue without placing the staples. This would result in a full-thickness injury to the rectal wall.

Modifications of the procedure

Authors have described the use of the circular stapling device for the patient with incomplete rectal prolapse.^10,11 The enteroentero anastomosis circular stapler may be especially useful in the patient with a deep gluteal cleft and narrow distance between the ischial tuberosities. The circular stapler may also achieve combined perineal and endorectal repair of rectocele.¹²

  Complications of STARR

Reports have documented postoperative problems such as urinary retention, rectal bleeding, anal pain, fecal incontinence, rectovaginal fistula, recurrence of the rectocele, intussusception, and symptoms of obstructed defecation.^13,14 Urgency and frequency and persistent discomfort from residual staples have also been reported.

Because the resection is a full-thickness approach and involves the anorectal area, the risk exists of dehiscence of the staple line, peritonitis, pelvic and retroperitoneal sepsis, and necrotizing fasciitis.

  Results so far

Problems due to heterogeneity of patient population and disassociation between symptom constellation, findings, and cause have made it difficult to interpret outcomes with various therapies.

One prospective multicenter trial¹⁵ evaluating STARR for outlet obstruction reported a significant improvement of all symptoms of constipation with improved constipation scores, minimal postoperative pain at 1 week, high patient satisfaction with improvement over 1 year of follow-up, and no dyspareunia.

However, these results were obtained in patient groups carefully selected by clinical and radiologic criteria, and who had failed with medical therapy, including diet and biofeedback, for 2 months. The complications in this group included:

• Fecal urgency, 17.8%.

• Incontinence to flatus, 8.9%.

• Urinary retention, 5.5%.

• Bleeding, 4.4%.

• Anastomotic stenosis, 3.3%.

• Pneumonia, 1.1%.

A randomized controlled trial comparing STARR¹⁶ with stapled transanal prolapsectomy combined with perineal levatorplasty showed that both procedures were effective in the treatment of outlet dysfunction. STARR was associated with lower pain, dyspareunia, reduced rectal sensitivity threshold volume, and residual rectocele at defecography.

  STARR for prolapse

A retrospective study comparing the circular transanal stapled procedure with the conventional excisional technique for partial mucosal prolapse reported shorter surgery times, reduced analgesia use, shorter hospital stays for the stapled group despite similar incidence of early and late complications, and early functional outcome.¹⁰

Another randomized controlled trial comparing STARR with stapled hemorrhoidopexy in patients with association of prolapsed hemorrhoids and rectal prolapse reported STARR provided a more complete resection of prolapsed tissue with equal morbidity and significantly lower incidence of residual disease and skin-tags.¹⁷

Among patients with rectal internal mucosal prolapse having the procedure, 45% had postoperative complications, 32.5% required a reoperation, 52% had recurrent constipation, 65% had recurrent rectal internal mucosal prolapse, and 5% complained of fecal incontinence.¹⁸

However, most reports of the procedure have had short follow-up. In the only report that described the long-term result of the STARR procedure for rectal prolapse, after a median follow-up of 67 months in 8 patients, no recurrence of mucosal rectal prolapse had been reported.¹⁹

Disclosure

The authors had no relationships to disclose.

References

1. Longo  A. Obstructed defecation because of rectal pathologies. Novel surgical treatment: stapled transanal resection (STARR).  Annual Cleveland Clinic Florida Colorectal Disease Symposium. January 2005; Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
2. Fucini  C, Ronchi  O, Elbetti  C. Electromyography of the pelvic floor musculature in the assessment of obstructed defecation symptoms.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:1168–1175.
3. Pescatori  M, Quondamcarlo  C. A new grading of rectal internal mucosal prolapse and its correlation with diagnosis and treatment.  Int J Colorectal Dis. 1999;14:245–249.
4. Karlbom  U, Pahlman  L, Nilsson  S, Graf  W. Relationships between defecographic findings, rectal emptying, and colonic transit time in constipated patients.  Gut. 1995;36:907–912.
5. Pomerri  F, Zuliani  M, Mazza  C, Villarejo  F, Scopece  A. Defecographic measurements of rectal intussusception and prolapse in patients and in asymptomatic subjects.  Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:641–645.
6. Pescatori  M, Spyrou  M, Pulvirenti d’Urso  A. A prospective evaluation of occult disorders in obstructed defecation using the “iceberg diagram”.  Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:785–789.
7. Dvorkin  LS, Gladman  MA, Epstein  J, Scott  SM, Williams  NS, Lunniss  PJ. Rectal intussusception in symptomatic patients is different from that in asymptomatic volunteers.  Br J Surg. 2005;92:866–872.
8. Mellgren  A, Anzen  B, Nilsson  BY , et al.  Results of rectocele repair. A prospective study.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:7–13.
9. Corman  ML, Carriero  A, Hager  T , et al.  Consensus conference on the stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) for disordered defaecation.  Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:98–101.
10. Araki  Y, Ishibashi  N, Kishimoto  Y, Ogata  Y, Shirouzu  K. Circular transanal stapled procedure for incomplete rectal prolapse associated with outlet obstruction versus conventional procedure.  Min Inv Ther Allied Technol. 2001;10:235–238.
11. Regadas  FS, Regadas  SM, Rodrigues  LV , et al.  Transanal repair of rectocele and full rectal mucosectomy with one circular stapler: a novel surgical technique.  Tech Coloproctol. 2005;9:63–66.
12. Altomare  DF, Rinaldi  M, Veglia  A, Petrolino  M, De Fazio  M, Sallustio  P. Combined perineal and endorectal repair of rectocele by circular stapler: a novel surgical technique.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:1549–1552.
13. Pescatori  M, Dodi  G, Salafia  C, Zbar  AP. Rectovaginal fistula after double-stapled transanal rectotomy (STARR) for obstructed defaecation.  Int J Colorectal Dis. 2005;20:83–85.
14. Dodi  G, Pietroletti  R, Milito  G, Binda  G, Pescatori  M. Bleeding, incontinence, pain and constipation after STARR transanal double stapling rectotomy for obstructed defecation.  Tech Coloproctol. 2003;7:148–153.
15. Boccasanta  P, Venturi  M, Stuto  A , et al.  Stapled transanal rectal resection for outlet obstruction: a prospective, multicenter trial.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:1285–1297
16. Boccasanta  P, Venturi  M, Salamina  G, Cesana  BM, Bernasconi  F, Roviaro  G. New trends in the surgical treatment of outlet obstruction: clinical and functional results of two novel transanal stapled techniques from a randomized controlled trial.  Int J Colorect Dis. 2004;9:359–369.
17. Boccasanta  P, Venturi  M, Roviaro  G. Stapled transanal rectal resection versus stapled anopexy in the cure of hemorrhoids associated with rectal prolapse. A randomized controlled trial.  Int J Colorectal Dis. 2007;22:245–251.
18. Pescatori  M, Boffi  F, Russo  A, Zbar  AP. Complications and recurrence after excision of rectal internal mucosal prolapse for obstructed defecation.  Int J Colorectal Dis. 2006;21:160–165.
19. Zacharaki  E, Pramateftaki  M.G, Kanel  D. Long-term results after transanal stapled excision of rectal internal mucosal prolapse.  Tech Coloproctol. 2007;11:67–69.