Skip to content

Comparison between perineal and anal repair of rectocele in obstructed defecation patients

Randomized Controlled Trial evaluating the effect of Perineal versus Anal Repairs of Rectocele on functional score, symptom improvement and sexual function in patients with Obstructed Defecation

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ANZCTR
Registry ID
ACTRN12609000802202
Enrollment
50
Registered
2009-09-16
Start date
2004-01-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2020-01-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Brief summary

Although functional outcome of surgical rectocele repair is considered successful in 70 to 90 percent of patients, it is a matter of debate which procedure is the most effective. This study was therefore designed to evaluate functional outcome of transperineal repair with and without levatorplasty versus transrectal repair of rectocele with obstructed defecation.

Interventions

multiparous females women with obstructed defecation due to rectocele will be randomly allocated into three groups: transperineal repair with levatorplasty (TPR-LP); transperineal repair without levatorplasty (TPR); and transanal repair (TAR. The study includes defecographic assessment, anal manometry, and score on a function questionnaire. Assessments will be done preoperatively and six months postoperatively. In the transanal approach,a Hill-Ferguson retractor was inserted into the anal canal,

multiparous females women with obstructed defecation due to rectocele will be randomly allocated into three groups: transperineal repair with levatorplasty (TPR-LP); transperineal repair without levatorplasty (TPR); and transanal repair (TAR. The study includes defecographic assessment, anal manometry, and score on a function questionnaire. Assessments will be done preoperatively and six months postoperatively. In the transanal approach,a Hill-Ferguson retractor was inserted into the anal canal, and the anterior rectal wall was exposed. With a finger inserted in the vagina, the true borders of the rectocele were delineated. After submucosal infiltration of a 1:200000 adrenaline solution in saline, the mucosal flap in the whole area of the rectocele (starting 1 cm above the dentate line) was elevated and excised. Horizontal plication of the muscular layer was performed with 2/0 Vicryl sutures, and the continuity of the mucosa was restored with one row of interrupted 3/0 Vicryl sutures (half Delorme procedure). Rectal packing was not used, and normal feeding was allowed on the second day after the operation. In the transperineal approach, a transverse incision was made in the perineum above the subcutaneous anal sphincter, and dissection was performed between the rectum and the vagina. Suturing of the rectal submucosal area was done with 3/0 Vicryl sutures. Then the deeper transverse or deeper perineal tissues were approximated to reinforce the rectovaginal septum, and to take tension off the first layer of sutures. When levatorplasty was done, tissues of the perineal body, including the puborectalis muscle, were approximated in the midline to provide an additional layer of tissue between the vaginal and rectal wall and to reinforce the closure. Each procedure takes about 45 - 60 minutes

Sponsors

Khaled Madbouly
Lead SponsorIndividual

Study design

Allocation
Randomised controlled trial
Intervention model
Parallel
Primary purpose
Treatment
Masking
Open (masking not used)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
20 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

multiparous females with rectocele

Exclusion criteria

Patients with recurrent rectocele, diabetes, previous anal surgery, systemic steroid treatment, connective tissue disease, slow-transit constipation, compromised anal sphincter function, or abnormal thyroid function

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ANZCTR · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026