The aim was to determine whether specialist-led habit training using Habit Training with Biofeedback (HTBF) is more effective than specialist-led habit training alone (HT) for chronic constipation and whether outcomes of interventions are improved by stratification to HTBF or HT based on diagnosis (functional defaecation disorder vs. no functional defaecation disorder) by radio-physiological investigations (INVEST).

This was a parallel three-arm randomized single-blinded controlled trial, permitting two randomized comparisons: HTBF versus HT alone; INVEST- versus no-INVEST-guided intervention. The inclusion criteria were age 18-70 years; attending specialist hospitals in England; self-reported constipation for >6 months; refractory to basic treatment. The main exclusions were secondary constipation and previous experience of the trial interventions. The primary outcome was the mean change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score at 6 months on intention to treat. The secondary outcomes were validated disease-specific and psychological questionnaires and cost-effectiveness (based on EQ-5D-5L).

In all, 182 patients were randomized 3:3:2 (target 384): HT n = 68; HTBF n = 68; INVEST-guided treatment n = 46. All interventions had similar reductions (improvement) in the primary outcome at 6 months (approximately -0.8 points of a 4-point scale) with no statistically significant difference between HT and HTBF (-0.03 points; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.27; P = 0.85) or INVEST versus no-INVEST (0.22; -0.11 to 0.55; P = 0.19). Secondary outcomes showed a benefit for all interventions with no evidence of greater cost-effectiveness of HTBF or INVEST compared with HT.

The results of the study at 6 months were inconclusive. However, with the caveat of under-recruitment and further attrition at 6 months, a simple, cheaper approach to intervention may be as clinically effective and more cost-effective than more complex and invasive approaches.

Patients with obstructed defecatory symptoms (ODS) are commonly referred to either gastroenterologists (GE) or colorectal surgeons (CS). Further management of these patients may be impacted by this choice of referral.

An online survey of specialist practice was disseminated to GE and CS in Australia and New Zealand. A case vignette of a patient presenting with ODS was described, with multiple subsequent scenarios designed to delineate the responder's preferred approach to management of this patient.

A total of 107 responders participated in the study, 62 CS and 45 GE. For a female patient with ODS not responding to pharmacological treatment, GE were more likely than CS to refer patients for anorectal manometry, while CS were more likely to refer for dynamic imaging. A quarter of CS and GE referred patients directly to pelvic floor physiotherapy, without any pre-treatment testing. Knowing the result of dynamic imaging, especially if a rectocele was demonstrated, substantially influenced management for both of the specialties: GE became more likely to refer the patients for CS consultation and less likely to refer directly for biofeedback or physiotherapy and CS were more likely to opt for an operative pathway over conservative management than they were prior to knowledge of the imaging findings. The majority (>75%) of GE and CS did not find it necessary to obtain a gynecological consultation, even in the presence of a rectocele.

Practice variation across medical specialties affects diagnostic and management recommendations for patients with ODS, impacting treatment pathways. Our findings provide an incentive toward establishing interdisciplinary, uniform, management guidelines.

Conservative measures are first-line treatment for a "symptomatic" rectocoele, while surgery to correct the anatomical defect may be considered in selected cases. The standard repair offered in our trust is a native tissue transvaginal rectocoele repair (TVRR) combined with levatorplasty. The primary aim of the study was to conduct a retrospective study to assess the outcome of this procedure, while secondary aims were to assess whether specific characteristics and symptoms were associated with response to surgery.

We conducted a retrospective review of 215 patients who underwent TVRR in a single tertiary referral center between 2006 and 2018. In total, 97% of patients had symptoms of obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) and 81% had a feeling of vaginal prolapse/bulge. We recorded in-hospital and 30 days post-operative complications and pre- and post-operative symptoms.

The majority of patients selected for surgery had rectocoele above 4 cm or medium size with contrast trapping. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.2 days. The in-hospital complication rate was 11.2% with the most common complications being urinary retention (8.4%). Mean length of follow-up was 12.7 months (SD 13.9, range 1.4-71.5) with global improvement of symptoms reported in 87.9% cases. Feeling of vaginal bulge improved in 80% of patients while ODS-related symptoms improved in 58% of cases.

The data suggest that TVRR might be a valid option in patients with rectocoele when conservative treatment has failed. Overall patient satisfaction is good, with improvement of ODS symptoms.

Obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) is a form of constipation that influences the quality of life in most patients and is an important health care issue. In 2004 Longo introduced a minimal invasive trans-anal approach known as Stapled Trans-Anal Rectal Resection (STARR) in order to correct mechanical disorders such as rectocele or rectal intussusception, two conditions present in more than 90% of patients with ODS. Considering the lack of a common view around ODS and STARR procedure. the aim of our study is to review the literature about preoperative assessment, operative features and outcomes of the STARR technique for the treatment of ODS. We performed a systematic search of literature, between January 2008 and December 2020 and 24 studies were included in this review. The total number of patients treated with STARR procedure was 4,464. In conclusion STARR surgical procedure has been proven to be safe and effective in treating symptoms of ODS and improving patients Quality of Life (QoL) and should be taken in consideration in the context of a holistic and multi modal approach to this complex condition. International guidelines are needed in order to optimize the diagnostic and therapeutic process and to improve outcomes.

Benign anorectal disorders of structure and function are common in clinical practice. These guidelines summarize the preferred approach to the evaluation and management of defecation disorders, proctalgia syndromes, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, and fecal incontinence in adults and represent the official practice recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. The scientific evidence for these guidelines was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. When the evidence was not appropriate for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, we used expert consensus to develop key concept statements. These guidelines should be considered as preferred but are not the only approaches to these conditions.

Anorectal disorders encompass structural, neuromuscular, and functional disorders. They are common, often distressing, and in some cases debilitating, and significantly add to the health care burden. They present with multiple, overlapping symptoms that can often obscure the underlying pathology and can pose significant diagnostic and management dilemmas. A meticulous history and comprehensive digital rectal examination can provide clarity on the diagnosis, appropriate testing, and management of these conditions. Today, with the development of sophisticated diagnostic tools such as high-resolution and high-definition (3-D) anorectal manometry, 3-D anal ultrasonography, magnetic resonance defecography and imaging, and neurophysiological tests such as translumbosacral anorectal magnetic stimulation, it is possible to more accurately define and characterize the underlying structural and functional abnormalities. In this review, we present a succinct update on the latest knowledge with regards to the pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of anal fissure, hemorrhoids, rectal prolapse, intussusception, rectocele, solitary rectal ulcer syndrome, levator ani syndrome, dyssynergic defecation and fecal incontinence.

Chronic constipation is a common disorder with a reported prevalence ranging from 3% to 27% in the general population. Several management strategies, including diagnostic tests, empiric treatments, and specific treatments, have been developed. Our aim was to develop European guidelines for the clinical management of constipation.

After a thorough review of the literature by experts in relevant fields, including gastroenterologists, surgeons, general practitioners, radiologists, and experts in gastrointestinal motility testing from various European countries, a Delphi consensus process was used to produce statements and practical algorithms for the management of chronic constipation.

Seventy-three final statements were agreed upon after the Delphi process. The level of evidence for most statements was low or very low. A high level of evidence was agreed only for anorectal manometry as a comprehensive evaluation of anorectal function and for treatment with osmotic laxatives, especially polyethylene glycol, the prokinetic drug prucalopride, secretagogues, such as linaclotide and lubiprostone and PAMORAs for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation. However, the level of agreement between the authors was good for most statements (80% or more of the authors). The greatest disagreement was related to the surgical management of constipation.

European guidelines on chronic constipation, with recommendations and algorithms, were developed by experts. Despite the high level of agreement between the different experts, the level of scientific evidence for most recommendations was low, highlighting the need for future research to increase the evidence and improve treatment outcomes in these patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the transanal repair of rectocele and rectal mucosectomy with a single circular stapler (TRREMS) on the treatment of obstructed defecation due to rectocele and to identify the predictive factors for unsuccessful results.

Consecutive patients with obstructed defecation symptoms (ODS) associated with rectocele who had the TRREMS procedure were included. Each patient was assessed by echodefecography, manometry, and colonic transit time as well as the Cleveland Clinic constipation score (CCS) before therapy and at follow-up after 6 months. Reduction in the CCS score was calculated as a ratio. Factors correlated with a decrease in the CCS were analyzed in a univariate analysis.

A total of 81 patients were included. Nineteen patients had postoperative complications that were not severe: 7 (8.6%) had tenesmus, 6 (7.4%) stenosis (4 treated with digital dilatation and 2 with endoscopic stricturectomy), 4 (4.9%) residual mucosal prolapse treated with rubber band ligation, 1 (1.2%) early bleeding, and 1(1.2%) thrombosis. Seventy-nine (97.5%) patients had a significant clinical response with significant reduction of the CCS constipation score from median 13 (range 17-10) to 4 (range, 8-2) (p = 0.0001); only 2 patients (2.5%) had an unsatisfactory response, complaining of straining and vaginal digitation during the evacuatory effort. Patients with anismus previously treated with biofeedback had a lower reduction ratio of the CCS score compared with patients without anismus (61.2 ± 2.8% versus 70.9% ± 1.5, p = 0.0006). There were no significant differences in the reduction of the CCS according to age, parity, type of delivery, previous hysterectomy, post-menopausal status, rectal mucosal prolapse and/or associated rectal intussusception, grade of rectocele and presence of complications.

The TRREMS procedure significantly improved evacuation disorders in this study. Appropriate selection of patients is key for the success of this approach. Anismus even if previously treated with biofeedback, was the main predictive factor of unsuccessful treatment.

Several posterior compartment surgical approaches are used to address posterior vaginal wall prolapse and obstructed defecation. We aimed to compare outcomes for both conditions among different surgical approaches.

A systematic review was performed comparing the impact of surgical interventions in the posterior compartment on prolapse and defecatory symptoms. MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 4 April 2018. Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective comparative and single-group studies of women undergoing posterior vaginal compartment surgery for vaginal bulge or bowel symptoms were included. Studies had to include both anatomical and symptom outcomes both pre- and post-surgery.

Forty-six eligible studies reported on six surgery types. Prolapse and defecatory symptoms improved with native-tissue transvaginal rectocele repair, transanal rectocele repair, and stapled transanal rectocele repair (STARR) surgeries. Although prolapse was improved with sacrocolpoperineopexy, defecatory symptoms worsened. STARR caused high rates of fecal urgency postoperatively, but this symptom typically resolved with time. Site-specific posterior repairs improved prolapse stage and symptoms of obstructed defecation. Compared with the transanal route, native-tissue transvaginal repair resulted in greater improvement in anatomical outcomes, improved obstructed defecation symptoms, and lower chances of rectal injury, but higher rates of dyspareunia.

Surgery in the posterior vaginal compartment typically has a high rate of success for anatomical outcomes, obstructed defecation, and bulge symptoms, although these may not persist over time. Based on this evidence, to improve anatomical and symptomatic outcomes, a native-tissue transvaginal rectocele repair should be preferentially performed.

Chronic constipation is a common symptom that regularly affects the quality of life of adult patients. Its treatment is mainly based on dietary rules, laxative drugs, perineal rehabilitation and surgical treatment. The French National Society of Coloproctology offers clinical practice recommendations on the basis of the data in the current literature, including those on recently developed treatments. Most are noninvasive, and the main concepts include the following: stimulant laxatives are now considered safe drugs and can be more easily prescribed as a second-line treatment; biofeedback therapy remains the gold standard for the treatment of anorectal dyssynergia that is resistant to medical treatment; transanal irrigation is the second-line treatment of choice in patients with neurological diseases, but it may also be proposed for patients without neurological diseases; and although interferential therapy may be a new promising treatment, it needs further evaluation.

Posterior vaginal wall prolapse (also known as 'posterior compartment prolapse') can cause a sensation of bulge in the vagina along with symptoms of obstructed defecation and sexual dysfunction. Interventions for prevention and conservative management include lifestyle measures, pelvic floor muscle training, and pessary use. We conducted this review to assess the surgical management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of any surgical intervention compared with another surgical intervention for management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (searched April 2017). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted researchers in the field.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were subjective awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for any prolapse, and objectively determined recurrent posterior wall prolapse.

We identified 10 RCTs evaluating 1099 women. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of evidence quality were risk of bias (associated mainly with performance, detection, and attrition biases) and imprecision (associated with small overall sample sizes and low event rates).Transanal repair versus transvaginal repair (four RCTs; n = 191; six months' to four years' follow-up)Awareness of prolapse is probably more common after the transanal approach (risk ratio (RR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 7.70; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). If 10% of women are aware of prolapse after transvaginal repair, between 10% and 79% are likely to be aware after transanal repair.Repeat surgery for any prolapse: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.88; 1 RCT; n = 57; low-quality evidence).Recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse is probably more likely after transanal repair (RR 4.12, 95% CI 1.56 to 10.88; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I2 = 35%; moderate-quality evidence). If 10% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after transvaginal repair, between 16% and 100% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after transanal repair.Postoperative obstructed defecation is probably more likely with transanal repair (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.79; 3 RCTs; n = 113; I2 = 10%; low-quality evidence).Postoperative dyspareunia: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 2 RCTs; n = 80; I2 = 5%; moderate-quality evidence).Postoperative complications: Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of any differences between groups (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.94 to 13.54; 3 RCTs; n = 135; I2 = 37%; low-quality evidence). If 2% of women have complications after transvaginal repair, then between 2% and 21% are likely to have complications after transanal repair.Evidence shows no clear differences between groups in operating time (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 1.49, 95% CI -11.83 to 8.84; 3 RCTs; n = 137; I2 = 90%; very low-quality evidence).Biological graft versus native tissue repairEvidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.62; 2 RCTs; n = 181; I2 = 13%; moderate-quality evidence) or repeat surgery for any prolapse (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.97; 2 RCTs; n = 271; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of a difference in rates of recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.01; 3 RCTs; n = 377; I2 = 6%; moderate-quality evidence); if 13% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after native tissue repair, between 4% and 13% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after biological graft. Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of postoperative obstructed defecation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 2 RCTs; n = 172; I2 = 42%; moderate-quality evidence) or postoperative dyspareunia (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.25; 2 RCTs; n = 152; I2 = 74%; low-quality evidence). Postoperative complications were more common with biological repair (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.72; 3 RCTs; n = 448; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence).Other comparisonsSingle RCTs compared site-specific vaginal repair versus midline fascial plication (n = 74), absorbable graft versus native tissue repair (n = 132), synthetic graft versus native tissue repair (n = 191), and levator ani plication versus midline fascial plication (n = 52). Data were scanty, and evidence was insufficient to show any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of any of these interventions. The mesh exposure rate in the synthetic group compared with the native tissue group was 7%.

Transvaginal repair may be more effective than transanal repair for posterior wall prolapse in preventing recurrence of prolapse, in the light of both objective and subjective measures. However, data on adverse effects were scanty. Evidence was insufficient to permit any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of other types of surgery. Evidence does not support the utilisation of any mesh or graft materials at the time of posterior vaginal repair. Withdrawal of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market may limit the generalisability of our findings.

In recent years, stapled transanal resection (STARR) has been adopted worldwide with convincing short-term results. However, due to the high recurrence rate and some major complications after STARR, there is still controversy about when the procedure is indicated. The aim of this study was to assess the safety, efficacy and feasibility of STARR performed with a new dedicated device for tailored transanal stapled surgery.

All the consecutive patients affected by obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) due to rectocele or/and rectal intussusception, who underwent STARR with the TST STARR-Plus stapler, were included in a prospective study. Pain, Cleveland Clinic Score for Constipation (CCCS) and incontinence, patient satisfaction, number of hemostatic stitches, operative time, hospital stay and perioperative complications were recorded. Postoperative complications and recurrence were also reported.

Forty-five consecutive patients (median age 50; range 24-79) were included in the study. Median resected volume was 15 cm3 (range 12-19 cm3) with a median height of surgical specimen of 5.6 cm (range 4.5-10 cm). The mean CCCS decreased from 17.26 (± 3.77) to 5.42 (± 2.78) postoperatively (p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction grade was excellent in 14 patients (31.1%), good in 25 (55.5%), sufficient in three (6.7%) and poor in three patients (6.7%). No major complications occurred. Five patients (11%) reported urgency after 30 days and two patients (4%) after 12 months. The Cleveland Clinic Incontinence score did not significantly change. At a median follow-up of 23 months (range 12-30 months), only three patients (6.7%) reported recurrent symptoms of obstructed defecation comparable to those reported at baseline.

TST STARR-Plus seems to be safe and effective for the treatment of ODS due to rectocele and rectal intussusception, and technical improvement could reduce the risk of some complications. However, careful patient selection is still the best means of preventing complications.

The purpose of this clinical practice update expert review is to describe the key principles in the use of surgical interventions and device-aided therapy for managing fecal incontinence (FI) and defecatory disorders. The best practices outlined in this review are based on relevant publications, including systematic reviews and expert opinion (when applicable). Best Practice Advice 1: A stepwise approach should be followed for management of FI. Conservative therapies (diet, fluids, techniques to improve evacuation, a bowel training program, management of diarrhea and constipation with diet and medications if necessary) will benefit approximately 25% of patients and should be tried first. Best Practice Advice 2: Pelvic floor retraining with biofeedback therapy is recommended for patients with FI who do not respond to the conservative measures indicated above. Best Practice Advice 3: Perianal bulking agents such as intra-anal injection of dextranomer may be considered when conservative measures and biofeedback therapy fail. Best Practice Advice 4: Sacral nerve stimulation should be considered for patients with moderate or severe FI in whom symptoms have not responded after a 3-month or longer trial of conservative measures and biofeedback therapy and who do not have contraindications to these procedures. Best Practice Advice 5: Until further evidence is available, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation should not be used for managing FI in clinical practice. Best Practice Advice 6: Barrier devices should be offered to patients who have failed conservative or surgical therapy, or in those who have failed conservative therapy who do not want or are not eligible for more invasive interventions. Best Practice Advice 7: Anal sphincter repair (sphincteroplasty) should be considered in postpartum women with FI and in patients with recent sphincter injuries. In patients who present later with symptoms of FI unresponsive to conservative and biofeedback therapy and evidence of sphincter damage, sphincteroplasty may be considered when perianal bulking injection and sacral nerve stimulation are not available or have proven unsuccessful. Best Practice Advice 8: The artificial anal sphincter, dynamic graciloplasty, may be considered for patients with medically refractory severe FI who have failed treatment or are not candidates for barrier devices, sacral nerve stimulation, perianal bulking injection, sphincteroplasty and a colostomy. Best Practice Advice 9: Major anatomic defects (eg, rectovaginal fistula, full-thickness rectal prolapse, fistula in ano, or cloaca-like deformity) should be rectified with surgery. Best Practice Advice 10: A colostomy should be considered in patients with severe FI who have failed conservative treatment and have failed or are not candidates for barrier devices, minimally invasive surgical interventions, and sphincteroplasty. Best Practice Advice 11: A magnetic anal sphincter device may be considered for patients with medically refractory severe FI who have failed or are not candidates for barrier devices, perianal bulking injection, sacral nerve stimulation, sphincteroplasty, or a colostomy. Data regarding efficacy are limited and 40% of patients had moderate or severe complications. Best Practice Advice 12: For defecatory disorders, biofeedback therapy is the treatment of choice. Best Practice Advice 13: Based on limited evidence, sacral nerve stimulation should not be used for managing defecatory disorders in clinical practice. Best Practice Advice 14: Anterograde colonic enemas are not effective in the long term for management of defecatory disorders. Best Practice Advice 15: The stapled transanal rectal resection and related procedures should not be routinely performed for correction of structural abnormalities in patients with defecatory disorders.

To assess the outcomes of rectal excisional procedures in adults with chronic constipation.

Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCiTY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level.

Forty-seven studies were identified, providing data on outcomes in 8340 patients. Average length of procedures was 44 min and length of stay (LOS) was 3 days. There was inadequate evidence to determine variations in procedural duration or LOS by type of procedure. Overall morbidity rate was 16.9% (0-61%), with lower rates observed after Contour Transtar procedure (8.9%). No mortality was reported after any procedures in a total of 5896 patients. Although inconsistently reported, good or satisfactory outcome occurred in 73-80% of patients; a reduction of 53-91% in Longo scoring system for obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) occurred in about 68-76% of patients. The most common long-term adverse outcome is faecal urgency, typically occurring in up to 10% of patients. Recurrent prolapse occurred in 4.3% of patients. Patients with at least 3 ODS symptoms together with a rectocoele with or without an intussusception, who have failed conservative management, may benefit from a rectal excisional procedure.

Rectal excisional procedures are safe with little major morbidity. It is not possible to advise which excisional technique is superior from the point of view of efficacy, peri-operative variables, or harms. Future study is required.

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation influences both motor and sensory pathways, as well as the central nervous system. Stimulation of posterior tibial nerve roots (L4 to S3) could improve stool evacuation through S3 and/or S2 stimulation.

This study aimed to assess the efficiency of bilateral posterior tibial nerve stimulation in the treatment of rectal evacuation disorder without anatomic obstruction.

This was a prospective case series studying the treatment of patients with obstructed defecation by posterior tibial nerve stimulation.

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral academic medical center.

Patients with rectal evacuation disorder without anatomic obstruction who were failing maximal conservative treatments were included.

Thirty minutes of bilateral transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was applied 3 times weekly for each patient for 6 consecutive weeks.

The primary end point was the change in the modified obstructed defecation score. Secondary end points were changes in rectal sensitivity volumes (urge to defecate volume and maximal tolerable volume) and quality of life using the Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life questionnaire.

Thirty-six patients (25 women) completed the trial. The mean age of patients was 57.2 years (SD = 14.4 y). No adverse events were reported. Symptomatic successful outcome was reported in 17 patients (47%) and modified obstructed defecation score decreased over 6 weeks (mean decrease = 10 points (95% CI, 8.7-11.3 points); p < 0.0001). Patients with successful outcome (responders) had relatively lower preoperative modified obstructed defecation score compared with patients with unsuccessful outcome (nonresponders). In the successful group, there were significant improvement after 6 weeks in both Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life score (mean improvement = 43.0 points (95% CI, 35.2-50.7 points); p < 0.0001) and rectal sensitivity (significant reductions in urge to defecate volume (from 258.1 ± 21.2 to 239.6 ± 15.3; p < 0.0001) and maximal tolerable volume (from 304.5 ± 24.8 to 286.8 ± 19.7; p < 0.0001)). No significant change in Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life or rectal sensitivity was observed in the nonresponders.

The study was designed just to proof the concept, but small sample size is a limitation. Another limitation is the short duration of study of only 6 weeks.

Current data showed that bilateral transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation can improve symptoms in a considerable percentage of patients with obstructed defecation without anatomic obstruction. The procedure is more effective in patients with a less-modified obstructed defecation score. Additional studies are needed to discover the predictive factors for success.

Paradoxical puborectalis contraction (PPC) and increased perineal descent (IPD) are subclasses of obstructive defecation. Often these conditions coexist, which can make the evaluation, workup, and treatment difficult. After a thorough history and examination, workup begins with utilization of proven diagnostic modalities such as cinedefecography and anal manometry. Advancements in technology have increased the surgeon's diagnostic armamentarium. Biofeedback and pelvic floor therapy have proven efficacy for both conditions as first-line treatment. In circumstances where PPC is refractory to biofeedback therapy, botulinum toxin injection is recommended. Historically, pelvic floor repair has been met with suboptimal results. In IPD, surgical therapy now is directed toward the potentially attendant abnormalities such as rectoanal intussusception and rectal prolapse. When these associated abnormalities are not present, an ostomy should be considered in patients with IPD as well as medically refractory PPC.

Internal rectal prolapse (IRP) is a well-recognized pelvic floor disorder mainly seen during defecatory straining. The symptomatic expression of IRP is complex, encompassing fecal continence (56%) and/or evacuation disorders (85%). IRP cannot be characterized easily by clinical examination alone and the emergence of dynamic defecography (especially MRI) has allowed a better comprehension of its pathophysiology and led to the proposition of a severity score (Oxford score) that can guide management. Decision for surgical management should be multidisciplinary, discussed after a complete work-up, and only after medical treatment has failed. Information should be provided to the patient, outlining the goals of treatment, the potential complications and results. Stapled trans-anal rectal resection (STARR) has been considered as the gold standard for IRP treatment. However, inconsistent results (failure observed in up to 20% of cases, and fecal incontinence occurring in up to 25% of patients at one year) have led to a decrease in its indications. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy has substantial advantages in solving the functional problems due to IRP (efficacy on evacuation and resolution of continence symptoms in 65-92%, and 73-97% of patients, respectively) and is currently considered as the gold standard therapy for IRP once the decision to operate has been made.

Chronic constipation is a prevalent disorder with considerable impact on healthcare costs and quality of life. Most patients would respond to conservative measures in primary care. Patients with refractory constipation are commonly referred to dedicated centers for appropriate investigations and management. After testing, three main subtypes of constipation are commonly identified: normal colon transit, slow transit, and functional defecation disorders. The etiology of functional defecation disorders is consistent with maladaptive behavior, and biofeedback therapy has been considered a valuable treatment option. Being safe and only marginally invasive, retraining has been historically employed to manage all types of refractory constipation. There are a number of strongly held beliefs about biofeedback therapy that are not evidence-based. The aim of this review was to address these beliefs concerning protocols, efficacy, indications, and safety, with a special focus on the relevance of identifying patients with a functional defecation disorder who are ideal candidates for retraining. Randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of biofeedback therapy for severe, refractory constipation due to functional defecation disorders. Limitations of the treatment are discussed, but biofeedback remains the safest option to successfully manage this hard-to-treat subtype of constipation.

Defecatory disorders (DD) and fecal incontinence (FI) are common conditions. DD are primarily attributable to impaired rectoanal function during defecation or structural defects. FI is caused by one or more disturbances of anorectal continence mechanisms. Altered stool consistency may be the primary cause or may unmask anorectal deficits in both conditions. Diagnosis and management requires a systematic approach beginning with a thorough clinical assessment. Symptoms do not reliably differentiate a DD from other causes of constipation such as slow or normal transit constipation. Therefore, all constipated patients who do not adequately respond to medical therapy should be considered for anorectal testing to identify a DD. Preferably, two tests indicating impaired defecation are required to diagnose a DD. Patients with DD, or those for whom testing is not available and the clinical suspicion is high, should be referred for biofeedback-based pelvic floor physical therapy. Patients with FI should be managed with lifestyle modifications, pharmacotherapy for bowel disturbances, and management of local anorectal problems (e.g., hemorrhoids). When these measures are not beneficial, anorectal testing and pelvic floor retraining with biofeedback therapy should be considered. Sacral nerve stimulation or perianal bulking could be considered in patients who have persistent symptoms despite optimal management of bowel disturbances and pelvic floor retraining.

Several studies show that stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) significantly improves constipation in most patients, while others remain symptomatic for obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). The aim of the study was to analyze clinical, manometric, and endoanal ultrasonography results in order to find any possible correlation between clinical and instrumental data, particularly in dissatisfied patients, both for those who remain symptomatic for ODS and for patients with new-onset fecal disorders.

All patients underwent a preoperative and postoperative assessment based on clinical evaluation, proctoscopy, defecography, anorectal manometry, and endoanal ultrasonography. Furthermore, we asked patients about a subjective satisfaction grading of outcome.

From January 2007 to December 2009, 103 patients were treated in our department with STARR for ODS. Postoperative endoanal ultrasound did not demonstrate any variations compared with the preoperative one. Postoperative scores showed statistically significant improvement, with respect to the preoperative value, with good and sufficient scores in 79.6% of patients, and an overall rate of satisfaction of 87.1%. Fecal disorders, including also the slightest alteration of continence, occurred in 24% of patients, in particular soiling 1.8%, urgency 7.4%, occasional gas leakage 5.5%, and liquid/solid leakage 9.3%. Anorectal manometry revealed a statistically significant reduction only in sensitivity threshold and maximum tolerated volume compared to patients with no disorders of continence.

Results indicate good satisfaction grading and a statistically significant improvement in scores of constipation. There is no close correlation between satisfaction grading and scores. Besides, the assessment of patient's satisfaction often does not match the objective functional outcome.

This study was designed to assess the safety and outcomes achieved with Stapled Trans-Anal Rectal Resection (STARR) vs laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) in obstructed defecation patients.

From 2002 to 2011, 52 patients (females) had a rectocele with outlet obstruction. After clinical assessment by an Obstructed Defecation Syndrome score (ODS), an anorectal manometry, a defecography and an endoanal ultrasound, the patients underwent either a STARR (n=25) or a LVR (n=27) according to the existence of an asymptomatic anal sphincter injury. Functional results were evaluated clinically and by the preoperative and 18 months postoperative ODS score and by an 18 months postoperative score of satisfaction.

Average ages were 56 ± 10 years in the STARR and 60 ± 9 years in LVR. The 1-month postoperative complication rates were comparable for the 2 groups (25%). Mean length of stay was shorter for STARR than for LVR (5.6 ± 2.1 vs. 7.1 ± 2.9, P=0.009). After treatment, the ODS was lowered by 56% in LVR and 59% in the STARR (P=0.0001) but with no difference between the 2 groups. Eighty percent of patients were very or moderately satisfied after LVR, versus 84% after STARR.

The 2 surgical procedures obtain good results with 80% of satisfied patients with a length of stay a little shorter in the STARR.

In our retrospective study, Stapled Trans-Anal Rectal Resection (STARR) and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy improved the outlet obstruction associated with recto-anal intussusception and rectocele.

Obstructed defecation syndrome due to internal intussusception and rectocele is a common disease, and various transanal surgical techniques have been proposed. Aim of the present study was to compare the internal Delorme (ID) and the stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) results in the treatment of patients with obstructed defecation syndrome. From September 2011 to May 2012, 23 patients were operated with STARR procedure and 12 patients with Delorme's procedure for obstructed defecation syndrome. All patients underwent preoperative assessment: clinical evaluation (Altomare ODS score, Wexner constipation scoring system), proctoscopy, defecography, anorectal manometry and endoanal ultrasonography. Surgery was proposed with: failure of medical therapy, incomplete defecation, and unsuccessful attempts with long periods spent in bathroom, defecation with digital assistance, use of enemas and defecography findings of rectoanal intussusception and rectocele. The average operative time was 28 min (range 15-65) for the STARR group and 56 min (range 28-96) for the ID group with a mean hospital stay of 2 days for both the procedures. The Wexner score significantly fell postoperatively from 17 to 4, 7 in STARR group and from 15.3 to 3.3 in the ID group. The Altomare score postoperatively fell from 18.2 to 5.5 for STARR group and from 16.5 to 5.3 for ID group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two procedures considering the outcomes parameters and the complications. Both ID and STARR procedure seem to be effective in the treatment of ODS.

There are no clear recommended imaging guidelines for the assessment of patients presenting primarily with obstructed defecation syndrome and defecation difficulty. The gold standard has always been the defecating proctogram which may require a rather poorly tolerated extended technique involving high-radiation exposure in young women which includes cystography, vaginography, small bowel opacification, and occasional peritoneography. The development of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging has obviated many of these extended techniques and may be supplemented by novel ultrasonographic methods including dynamic transperineal sonography, real-time 3D translabial ultrasound and 3D dynamic echodefecography. Patients potentially suitable for surgical treatment display a multiplicity of pelvic floor and perineal soft-tissue anomalies where one pathology (such as rectocele or enterocele) are considered dominant. Despite the introduction of recent stapled and robotic technologies, there is a dual dialog concerning the functional outcome of these procedures. Imaging and surgical algorithms for these patients are provided.

Biofeedback therapy has been used to treat the symptoms of people with chronic constipation referred to specialist services within secondary and tertiary care settings. However, different methods of biofeedback are used within different centres and the magnitude of suggested benefits and comparable effectiveness of different methods of biofeedback has yet to be established.

To determine the efficacy and safety of biofeedback for the treatment of chronic idiopathic (functional) constipation in adults.

We searched the following databases from inception to 16 December 2013: CENTRAL, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Review Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, and PsychINFO. Hand searching of conference proceedings and the reference lists of relevant articles was also undertaken.

All randomised trials evaluating biofeedback in adults with chronic idiopathic constipation were considered for inclusion.

The primary outcome was global or clinical improvement as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, and adverse events as defined by the included studies. Where possible, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria.

Seventeen eligible studies were identified with a total of 931 participants. Most participants had chronic constipation and dyssynergic defecation. Sixteen of the trials were at high risk of bias for blinding. Attrition bias (4 trials) and other potential bias (5 trials) was also noted. Due to differences between study populations, the heterogeneity of the different samples and large range of different outcome measures, meta-analysis was not possible. Different effect sizes were reported ranging from 40 to 100% of patients who received biofeedback improving following the intervention. While electromyograph (EMG) biofeedback was the most commonly used, there is a lack of evidence as to whether any one method of biofeedback is more effective than any other method of biofeedback. We found low or very low quality evidence that biofeedback is superior to oral diazepam, sham biofeedback and laxatives. One study (n = 60) found EMG biofeedback to be superior to oral diazepam. Seventy per cent (21/30) of biofeedback patients had improved constipation at three month follow-up compared to 23% (7/30) of diazepam patients (RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.51 to 5.98). One study compared manometry biofeedback to sham biofeedback or standard therapy consisting of diet, exercise and laxatives. The mean number of complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) per week at three months was 4.6 in the biofeedback group compared to 2.8 in the sham biofeedback group (MD 1.80, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.35; 52 patients). The mean number of CSBM per week at three months was 4.6 in the biofeedback group compared to 1.9 in the standard care group (MD 2.70, 95% CI 1.99 to 3.41; 49 patients). Another study (n = 109) compared EMG biofeedback to conventional treatment with laxatives and dietary and lifestyle advice. This study found that at both 6 and 12 months 80% (43/54) of biofeedback patients reported clinical improvement compared to 22% (12/55) laxative-treated patients (RR 3.65, 95% CI 2.17 to 6.13). Some surgical procedures (partial division of puborectalis and stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR)) were reported to be superior to biofeedback, although with a high risk of adverse events in the surgical groups (wound infection, faecal incontinence, pain, and bleeding that required further surgical intervention). Successful treatment, defined as a decrease in the obstructed defecation score of > 50% at one year was reported in 33% (3/39) of EMG biofeedback patients compared to 82% (44/54) of STARR patients (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.65). For the other study the mean constipation score at one year was 16.1 in the balloon sensory biofeedback group compared to 10.5 in the partial division of puborectalis surgery group (MD 5.60, 95% CI 4.67 to 6.53; 40 patients). Another study (n = 60) found no significant difference in efficacy did not demonstrate the superiority of a surgical intervention (posterior myomectomy of internal anal sphincter and puborectalis) over biofeedback. Conflicting results were found regarding the comparative effectiveness of biofeedback and botulinum toxin-A. One small study (48 participants) suggested that botulinum toxin-A injection may have short term benefits over biofeedback, but the relative effects of treatments were uncertain at one year follow-up. No adverse events were reported for biofeedback, although this was not specifically reported in the majority of studies. The results of all of these studies need to be interpreted with caution as GRADE analyses rated the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes (i.e. clinical or global improvement as defined by the studies) as low or very low due to high risk of bias (i.e. open label studies, self-selection bias, incomplete outcome data, and baseline imbalance) and imprecision (i.e. sparse data).

Currently there is insufficient evidence to allow any firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of biofeedback for the management of people with chronic constipation. We found low or very low quality evidence from single studies to support the effectiveness of biofeedback for the management of people with chronic constipation and dyssynergic defecation. However, the majority of trials are of poor methodological quality and subject to bias. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials with adequate sample sizes, validated outcome measures (especially patient reported outcome measures) and long-term follow-up are required to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.

Stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) in patients with obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) is limited by the capacity of the circular stapler used. This prospective cohort study was conducted to assess real-world clinical outcomes of STARR with the new CONTOUR® TRANSTAR™ device, shortly named TRANSTAR, at 12 months postoperatively.

From January 2009 to January 2011, consecutive patients who underwent TRANSTAR in 22 European colorectal centers were enrolled in the study. Functional outcomes and quality of life were assessed by the changes in a number of scoring systems (Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom (KESS) score, ODS score, St. Mark's score, Euro Quality of Life-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) score, and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life (PAC-QoL) score), at 12 months as compared to baseline. All complications were recorded and analyzed.

A total of 100 patients (98% female), mean age 60 years, were entered in the study. Statistically significant improvements were seen in the KESS (median 18 vs. 6; p < 0.01), ODS (median 15 vs. 4; p < 0.01), and PAC-Qol scores (median 2.10 vs. 0.86; p < 0.01). St. Mark's and EQ-5D scores improved nonsignificantly. Complications were reported in 11 % of patients, including bleeding (5%), staple line complications (3%), urinary retention (2%), and persistent pain (1%). No major complications or mortality occurred.

TRANSTAR facilitated a tailored, real circumferential full-thickness rectal resection, leading to improved patient functional and quality of life outcomes at 12 months postoperatively. It represents a safe and effective treatment for ODS in local clinical practice, although the sustainability of real-world results needs to be proven in the long-term follow-up.

Stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) in patients with obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) is limited by the capacity of the circular stapler used. This prospective cohort study was conducted to assess real-world clinical outcomes of STARR with the new CONTOUR® TRANSTAR™ device, shortly named TRANSTAR, at 12 months postoperatively.

From January 2009 to January 2011, consecutive patients who underwent TRANSTAR in 22 European colorectal centers were enrolled in the study. Functional outcomes and quality of life were assessed by the changes in a number of scoring systems (Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom (KESS) score, ODS score, St. Mark's score, Euro Quality of Life-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) score, and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life (PAC-QoL) score), at 12 months as compared to baseline. All complications were recorded and analyzed.

A total of 100 patients (98% female), mean age 60 years, were entered in the study. Statistically significant improvements were seen in the KESS (median 18 vs. 6; p < 0.01), ODS (median 15 vs. 4; p < 0.01), and PAC-Qol scores (median 2.10 vs. 0.86; p < 0.01). St. Mark's and EQ-5D scores improved nonsignificantly. Complications were reported in 11 % of patients, including bleeding (5%), staple line complications (3%), urinary retention (2%), and persistent pain (1%). No major complications or mortality occurred.

TRANSTAR facilitated a tailored, real circumferential full-thickness rectal resection, leading to improved patient functional and quality of life outcomes at 12 months postoperatively. It represents a safe and effective treatment for ODS in local clinical practice, although the sustainability of real-world results needs to be proven in the long-term follow-up.

The surgical indications for symptomatic rectocele are undefined, and surgery has high recurrence rates. We implemented magnetic resonance imaging defecography (MRID) to determine if utilizing strict inclusion criteria for rectocele repair improves outcomes.

Patients with obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) who underwent dynamic MRID were evaluated. Indications for surgical repair were defecation requiring manual assistance and the following MRID results: anterior defect >2 cm, incomplete evacuation, and the absence of perineal descent. Primary outcomes were the change in quality of life (QOL) scores and recurrence.

From 2006 to 2013, 143 patients who presented with ODS underwent MRID. Seventeen patients met the criteria for repair. Recurrence was low (5.8%) with a median follow-up of 23 months, QOL scores improved from 57.3 to 76.5 (P = .041).

A minority of patients (12%) with ODS met the above criteria for rectocele repair. Patients who underwent repair had a significant improvement in QOL and low recurrence rate.

The indications for operation in patients with obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) with rectocele are not well defined.

A total of 90 female patients with ODS and rectocele were prospectively evaluated and treated with fiber supplements and biofeedback training. Univariate and multivariate regression was used to determine factors predictive of failing medical management.

Obstructive symptoms were the most prevalent presenting complaint (82.2%). Ultimately, 71.1% of patients responded to medical management and biofeedback. Multivariate regression analysis suggested that the presence of internal intussusception was associated with a lower chance of undergoing surgery to address ODS symptoms [odds ratio 0.18; P = .05], whereas inability to expel balloon, contrast retention on defecography, and splinting were not (P ≥ .15).

Rectoceles with concomitant intussusception in patients with ODS appear to portend a favorable response to biofeedback and medical management. We argue that all patients considered for surgery for rectoceles because of ODS should first undergo appropriate bowel retraining.

Limited literature exists on whether slow colonic transit adversely influences the results of outlet obstruction surgery. We compared the functional results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) for obstructed defaecation secondary to high grade internal rectal prolapse in patients with normal and slow colonic transit.

Consecutive patients suffering from obstructed defaecation associated with an internal rectal prolapse, who underwent an LVR between 2007 and 2011, were identified from a prospective database. All patients underwent preoperative defaecating proctography, anorectal manometry and colonic transit studies. Symptoms were assessed preoperatively and at 12 months after operation using a standardized questionnaire incorporating the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) questionnaire, the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) scale and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI).

In all, 151 patients underwent LVR, 109 with normal and 42 with slow colonic transit. Preoperatively there was no significant difference between the two groups in age, sex, PAC-SYM score or FISI score. The PAC-SYM and FISI scores were significantly reduced in both groups at 12 months (P < 0.001). When comparing the change from baseline of PAC-SYM between patients with and without slow transit constipation, a significant difference was observed (P = 0.030) with changes of 58% and 40%. Quality of life (GIQLI and PAC-QOL) was equally improved in both groups. Quality of life improvement was less in patients with right colonic stasis.

Slow colonic transit has no adverse impact on function and quality of life after LVR for obstructed defaecation due to high grade internal rectal prolapse.

Rectal prolapse continues to be problematic for both patients and surgeons alike, in part because of increased recurrence rates despite several well-described operations. Patients should be aware that although the prolapse will resolve with operative therapy, functional results may continue to be problematic. This article describes the recommended evaluation, role of adjunctive testing, and outcomes associated with both perineal and abdominal approaches.

Pelvic floor retraining is considered first-line treatment for patients with faecal incontinence or obstructed defaecation. There are at present no data on the effect of a high grade internal rectal prolapse on outcomes of pelvic floor retraining. The current study aimed to assess this influence.

In all, 120 consecutive patients were offered pelvic floor retraining. The predominant symptom was faecal incontinence in 56 patients (47%) and obstructed defaecation in 64 patients (53%). Patients were assessed before and after therapy using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) score and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). Defaecography and anorectal manometry were performed in all patients before pelvic floor retraining.

A high grade internal rectal prolapse was observed in 42 patients (35%). In patients with faecal incontinence without a high grade internal rectal prolapse, the FISI score decreased from 36 to 27 (P < 0.01). The FISI score did not change (32 vs 32; P = 0.93) in patients with a high grade internal rectal prolapse. The PAC-SYM score improved significantly (24 vs 19; P = 0.01) in patients with obstructed defaecation without a high grade rectal prolapse compared with no significant change (26 vs 25; P = 0.21) in patients with a high grade rectal prolapse. Quality of life (GIQLI) improved only in patients without a high grade internal rectal prolapse.

Pelvic floor retraining may be useful in patients with defaecation disorders not associated with a high grade internal rectal prolapse. Patients with a high grade internal rectal prolapse may be considered for surgery from the outset.

Chronic constipation is a very common symptom that is rarely associated with life-threatening diseases, but has a substantial impact on patient quality of life and consumption of healthcare resources. Despite the large number of affected patients and the social relevance of the condition, no cost-effectiveness analysis has been made of any diagnostic or therapeutic algorithm, and there are few data comparing different diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in the long term. In this scenario, increasing emphasis has been placed on demonstrating that a number of older and new therapeutic options are effective in treating chronic constipation in well-performed randomised controlled trials, but there is still debate as to when these therapeutic options should be included in diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms. The aim of this review is to perform a critical evaluation of the current diagnostic and therapeutic options available for adult patients with chronic constipation in order to identify a rational patient approach; furthermore we attempt to clarify some of the more controversial points to aid clinicians in managing this symptom in a more efficacious and cost-effective manner.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a magnetic resonance (MR)-based classification system of obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) to guide physicians in patient management.

The medical records and imaging series of 105 consecutive patients (90 female, 15 male, aged 21-78 years, mean age 46.1 ± 5.1 years) referred to our center between April 2011 and January 2012 for symptoms of ODS were retrospectively examined. After history taking and a complete clinical examination, patients underwent MR imaging according to a standard protocol using a 0.35 T permanent field, horizontally oriented open-configuration magnet. Static and dynamic MR-defecography was performed using recognized parameters and well-established diagnostic criteria.

Sixty-seven out of 105 (64 %) patients found the prone position more comfortable for the evacuation of rectal contrast while 10/105 (9.5 %) were unable to empty their rectum despite repeated attempts. Increased hiatus size, anterior rectocele and focal or extensive defects of the levator ani muscle were the most frequent abnormalities (67.6, 60.0 and 51.4 %, respectively). An MR-based classification was developed based on the combinations of abnormalities found: Grade 1 = functional abnormality, including paradoxical contraction of the puborectalis muscle, without anatomical defect affecting the musculo-fascial structures; Grade 2 = functional defect associated with a minor anatomical defect such as rectocele ≤ 2 cm in size and/or first-degree intussusception; Grade 3 = severe defects confined to the posterior anatomical compartment, including >2 cm rectocele, second- or higher-degree intussusception, full-thickness external rectal prolapse, poor mesorectal posterior fixation, rectal descent >5 cm, levator ani muscle rupture, ballooning of the levator hiatus and focal detachment of the endopelvic fascia; Grade 4 = combined defects of two or three pelvic floor compartments, including cystocele, hysterocele, enlarged urogenital hiatus, fascial tears enterocele or peritoneocele; Grade 5 = changes after failed surgical repair abscess/sinus tracts, rectal pockets, anastomotic strictures, small uncompliant rectum, kinking and/or lateral shift of supra-anastomotic portion and pudendal nerve entrapment.

According to our classification, Grades 1 and 2 may be amenable to conservative therapy; Grade 3 may require surgical intervention by a coloproctologist; Grade 4 would need a combined urogynecological and coloproctological approach; and Grade 5 may require an even more complex multidisciplinary approach. Validation studies are needed to assess whether this MR-based classification system leads to a better management of patients with ODS.

The transanal operative procedure for the treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) can be secondarily applied in cases of failure or ineffectiveness of conservative treatment. Clinically established transanal procedures are rectocele resection (RR), mucosectomy for internal rectal prolapse according to the Rehn-Delorme procedure (MR) and stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR Contour Transtar). Only few studies have indicated the value of RR and MR in the treatment of obstructive diseases and in general study quality and evidence level are low. There might be an indication in rectocele-associated symptoms, such as incomplete evacuation, straining and digitation. In contrast the STARR procedure has been well characterized by a large number of high quality studies providing an elevated evidence level for the treatment of ODS. Functional results are available with a follow-up of 1 year up to 68 months postoperatively. Response rates of up to 90% were reported whereas recurrence rates were given as a maximum of 18% at 68 months follow-up. In summary the STARR procedure provides good functional results for conservative refractory outlet obstruction with minor morbidity and outcome seems to remain stable in the long-term follow-up.

Prucalopride is a selective serotonin receptor agonist with prokinetic activity, indicated for women with chronic constipation in whom laxatives have failed to provide adequate relief. Data suggests an improvement in about 50 % of such patients but whether the therapeutic effect is on patients with slow transit constipation (STC) and/or obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS), or even those with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C) is unknown. We therefore assessed whether there is any association between prucalopride efficacy and constipation type.

All patients receiving prucalopride between June 2010 and April 2012 at our institution were identified, and data analysed following a 4-week "test" period. Patients were sub-grouped as those suffering with ODS, STC, mixed (ODS and STC) or IBS-C based on symptomatology and investigations. Subjective assessment of patient satisfaction and continuation of medication were taken as positive outcomes and analysed for each sub-type along with any side effects.

Sixty-nine patients met our criteria. Data were available for 59 women (median age 46 years, range 17-79 years). Sixty-five per cent of prescriptions came from colorectal surgeons. Overall, 25 out of 59 (42 %) patients improved, according to our criteria, after the 4-week trial period. Seventeen patients (29 %) had ODS, 26 (44 %) had STC, 7 (12 %) had mixed symptoms and 9 (15 %) had IBS-C. At 4 weeks, 10 out of 17 patients (59 %) with ODS had improved compared with 4 out of 9 patients (44 %) with IBS-C, 3 out of 7 patients (43 %) with mixed symptoms and 8 out of 26 (31 %) patients with STC. The underlying disorder did not predict whether or not a patient responded to the 4-week trial period (p = 0.32). Nine patients (15 %) experienced side effects that precluded further use.

Patients with all categories of constipation may respond to prucalopride. A trial regime may be indicated regardless of the aetiology of the constipation.

The second part of the Consensus Statement of the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Italian Society of Colo-Rectal Surgery reports on the treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation. There is no evidence that increasing fluid intake and physical activity can relieve the symptoms of chronic constipation. Patients with normal-transit constipation should increase their fibre intake through their diet or with commercial fibre. Osmotic laxatives may be effective in patients who do not respond to fibre supplements. Stimulant laxatives should be reserved for patients who do not respond to osmotic laxatives. Controlled trials have shown that serotoninergic enterokinetic agents, such as prucalopride, and prosecretory agents, such as lubiprostone, are effective in the treatment of patients with chronic constipation. Surgery is sometimes necessary. Total colectomy with ileorectostomy may be considered in patients with slow-transit constipation and inertia coli who are resistant to medical therapy and who do not have defecatory disorders, generalised motility disorders or psychological disorders. Randomised controlled trials have established the efficacy of rehabilitative treatment in dys-synergic defecation. Many surgical procedures may be used to treat obstructed defecation in patients with acquired anatomical defects, but none is considered to be the gold standard. Surgery should be reserved for selected patients with an impaired quality of life. Obstructed defecation is often associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Surgery with the placement of prostheses is replacing fascial surgery in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, but the efficacy and safety of such procedures have not yet been established.

Chronic constipation is a very common condition, which is responsible for a major socioeconomic burden. Primary management must rule out secondary constipation before recognizing chronic idiopathic constipation, which is the most common diagnosis. Initial treatment frequently associates simple lifestyle modifications, whose efficacy is limited, with osmotic laxatives or bulking agents. If those measures do not relieve symptoms, a switch of laxatives or a combination must be proposed. Pharmacological treatments of constipation represent a new alternative approach in case of failure of previously mentioned measures. In case of chronic constipation reluctant to all conservative therapies, specific tests are required before considering biofeedback intervention or exceptionally a surgical option.

The causes of functional anorectal outlet obstruction (outlet obstruction) include functional defecation disorder (FDD), rectocele, and rectal intussusception (RI). It is unclear whether outlet obstruction is associated with rectal hyposensitivity (RH) in patients with functional constipation (FC). The aim of this study was to determine the association between RH and outlet obstruction in patients with FC.

This was a retrospective study using a prospectively collected constipation database, and the population comprised 107 patients with FC (100 females; median age, 49 years). We performed anorectal manometry, defecography, rectal barostat, and at least two tests (balloon expulsion test, electromyography, or colon transit time study). RH was defined as one or more sensory threshold pressures raised beyond the normal range on rectal barostat. We investigated the association between the presence of RH and an outlet obstruction such as large rectocele (> 2 cm in size), RI, or FDD.

Forty patients (37.4%) had RH. No significant difference was observed in RH between patients with small and large rectoceles (22 [44.9%] vs. 18 [31%], respectively; p = 0.140). No significant difference was observed in RH between the non-RI and RI groups (36 [36.7%] vs. 4 [30.8%], respectively; p = 0.599). Furthermore, no significant difference in RH was observed between the non-FDD and FDD groups (19 [35.8%] vs. 21 [38.9%], respectively; p = 0.745).

RH and outlet obstruction are common entities but appear not to be significantly associated.