Does the need to self‐digitate or the presence of a large or nonemptying rectocoele on proctography influence the outcome of transanal rectocoele repair?

Abstract Introduction Transanal repair of anterior rectocoele is a well described technique with variable success rate. In our department we offer repair to patients who fit the following criteria; the need to self digitate (transvaginal or perineal); a large rectocoele; a nonemptying rectocoele. Using these selection criteria previous authors have shown excellent results. The aim of our study was to review our results using this selective approach and also to determine whether the need to self digitate, the presence of a large rectocoele and the degree of emptying could predict which patients would achieve a successful result. Methods Fifty‐five patients underwent repair over a three‐year period. The main presenting symptom was noted for each patient and also whether self‐digitation was required in order to achieve successful evacuation. Dynamic evacuation proctography was performed on all patients. Size of rectocoele, percentage of paste expelled and other proctographic abnormalities were noted for each patient. Follow up was at 6 weeks and 6 months at which point patients were asked whether their symptoms had resolved, improved, remained the same or had worsened. Results Complete data were available for 48 of the patients (median age 52 years, IQR 43–63). The presenting complaint was constipation in 22 patients, obstructive defeacation in 15, incomplete evacuation in 5, postdefaecation soiling in 4 and dyspareunia in 2. Thirty‐eight patients noted the need to self‐digitate, 10 did not. Proctography revealed a large rectocoele (> 4 cm) in 22 patients and a medium or small rectocoele (< 4 cm) in 26 patients. There was a rectocoele alone in 34 patients, in combination with perineal descent in 11 and with intussusception in 3. Median percentage of paste expelled was 70% (range 20–95). At 6 weeks postoperatively, 43 patients had complete resolution of their symptoms whilst 5 reported only some or no improvement. At 6 months, 37 patients sustained complete resolution of their symptoms and 11 did not. Pre‐operative factors were compared for these two groups of patients. There was no difference in age ( P  > 0.05, Mann–Whitney U ‐test) between the two groups There was also no difference in size of rectocoele, degree of emptying, the presence of another proctographic abnormality and the need to self‐digitate between the two groups ( P  > 0.05, Fisher's exact test). Discussion No factors were seen to distinguish between the successful and unsuccessful groups of patients following rectocoele repair, however, an overall success rate of 75% was achieved using our selection criteria. This figure is in keeping with reported success rates in the literature.