Assessment of the Quality of Life of Patients Suffering from Lower Anterior Rectocele Grades 2–3 Using The SF‑36 Questionnaire
https://doi.org/10.52420/umj.24.6.30
EDN: ZJDLRQ
Abstract
Materials and methods. A single-center, prospective, observational study from 2005 to 2019 included 38 patients with lower rectocele and the need for manual assistance during defecation, who underwent rectovaginal septum plastic surgery with local tissues in the proctology department of the Sverdlovsk Regional Clinical Hospital No. 1. All women underwent defecography, Cleveland Clinic Constipation Scale (Wexner Scale) and SF‑36 questionnaires before and 3 years after surgery.
Results. After 3 years, defecography data showed that rectocele was detected in 11/38 (29.0 %) patients. The anorectal resting zone position index decreased from 35.0 [30.0; 40.0] mm to 30.0 [30.0; 34.8] mm (p < 0.001), and the anorectal straining zone index decreased from 55.0 [50.0; 60.0] mm to 41.0 [40.0; 55.0] mm (p < 0.001). 3/38 (7.9 %) women returned to the need for manual assistance during defecation. The Cleveland Clinic Constipation Scale score decreased from 9 to 7 points (p < 0.001). Six of the eight SF‑36 scales showed no changes. The scores of the «Pain Intensity» and «Social Functioning» scales decreased from 74.7 (22.4) to 52.5 (27.2) (p = 0.001) 3 years after the correction, respectively.
Conclusion. Rectovaginal septum plastic surgery with local tissues in patients with grades 2–3 lower rectocele 3 years after the surgery leads to the preservation of the anatomical result and improvement of the rectal emptying function in most women, while the quality of life indicators do not increase.
About the Author
A. V. Bogdanov
Sverdlovsk Regional Clinical Hospital No. 1; Ural State Medical University; Ural Institute of Healthcare Management named after A. B. Blokhin
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Aleksey V. Bogdanov – Head of the Oncology Department of Surgical Treatment Methods (Department
of Abdominal Oncology and Proctology), Assistant of the Department of Surgical Diseases, Assistant of the Department of Surgery, Proctology and Endoscopy
Ekaterinburg
Competing Interests:
The author declares the absence of obvious or potential conflict of interest.
References
1. Block IR. Transrectal repair of rectocele using obliterative suture. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. 1986; 29(11):707–711. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02555314.
2. Biryukov OM, Mudrov AA, Kostarev IV, Titov AYu, Lukyanov AS, Achkasov SI. Anatomical and functional outcomes of surgical treatment of rectocele with internal rectal intussusception. Koloproktologia. 2024; 23(4):24–30. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2024-23-4-24-30.
3. Lukyanov AS, Kostarev IV, Frolov SA, Minbaev ShT, Biryukov OM. Remote results of surgical treatment of rectocele by rectovaginal septum plastic surgery with a W‑shaped mesh implant. Surgeon. 2024;(3–4): 39–48. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33920/med‑15-2402-04.
4. Fomenko OYu, Shelygin YuA, Poryadin GV, Titov AYu, Ponomarenko AA, Mudrov AA, et al. Functional state of the pelvic floor muscles in patients with obstructive defecation syndrome. Koloproktologia. 2017;(2):55–61. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YNUIRR.
5. Milani AL, Damoiseaux A, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, Withagen MIJ. Long-term outcome of vaginal mesh or native tissue in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. International Urogynecology Journal. 2018;29(6):847–858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3512-3.
6. Naumov AV, Kulikovsky VF, Oleynik NV. Evaluation of the results of surgical treatment of rectocele against the background of combined pathology of the pelvic floor and depending on the surgical approach. Bulletin of Experimental and Clinical Surgery. 2009;2(2):129–136. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/JXQWUJ.
7. Antosh DD, Yurteri-Kaplan LA, Shveiky D, Liu M, Heisler C, Hegde A, et al. FPMRS challenges on behalf of the Collaborative Research in Pelvic Surgery Consortium (CoRPS): Managing complicated cases: Series 3: Challenging recurrent prolapse in a medically complicated patient. International Urogynecology Journal. 2019;30(7):1039–1043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03955-4.
8. Lukyanov AS, Titov AYu, Biryukov OM, Mudrov AA, Kostarev IV. Methods for assessing the effectiveness of operations with the installation of mesh implants for rectocele. Russian Journal of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Coloproctology. 2021;31(3):7–25. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.22416/1382-4376-2021-31-3-17-25.
9. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI‑20 and PFIQ‑7). American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2005;193(1):103–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025.
10. Hopman WM, Berger C, Joseph L, Towheed T, VandenKerkhof E, Anastassiades T, et al. The natural progression of health-related quality of life: Results of a five-year prospective study of SF‑36 scores in a normative population. Quality of Life Research. 2006;15(3):527–536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-2096-4.
11. Sullivan M, Karlsson J. The Swedish SF‑36 Health Survey III. Evaluation of criterion-based validity: Results from normative population. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1998;51(11):1105–1113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00102-4.
12. Amirjanova VN, Goryachev DV, Korshunov NI, Rebrov AP, Sorotskaya VN. SF‑36 questionnaire population quality of life indices objective. Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2008;46(1):36–48. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/PZMDWR.
13. Nashekenova ZM, Aringazina AM, Medet VV. Women’s life quality with genital prolaps before and after surgical correction. Bulletin of the Kazakh National Medical University. 2020;(2–1):498–500. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/SQDAPW.
14. Ilkanich AYa, Matveeva AS, Vishnyakova IA, Lobanova YuS, Lopatskaya ZhN. Method of surgical treatment of rectocele combined with apical prolapse. Vestnik SurGU. Meditsina. 2020;(1):30–38. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.34822/2304-9448-2020-1-30-38.
15. Lukianov AS, Biryukov OM, Titov AYu, Mudrov AA, Nikishin TV, Kostarev IV. Reconstruction of the rectovaginal septum with a W‑mesh for rectocele. Koloproktologia. 2022;21(2):81–90. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2022-21-2-81-90.
16. Shelygin YuA, Titov AYu, Dzhanaev YuA, Biryukov OM, Mudrov AA, Krasnopolskaya IV. Peculiarities of the clinical picture and the nature of neuro-functional disorders in patients with rectocele. Koloproktologia. 2012;(4):27–32. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/PYODWV.
17. Tzarkov PV, Sandrikov VA, Tulina IA, Derinov AA, Brindar NG, Kartashova OV, et al. Efficacy of rectocele surgical treatment by means of mesh implants at obstructive defecation syndrome. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2012;(8):25–33. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/NQYNSQ.
18. Aleshin DV, Achkasov SI, Shakhmatov DG, Surovegin ES, Fomenko OY, Ignatenko MA, et al. Clinical manifestations and quality of life in patients with different types of idiopathic megabowel. Koloproktologia. 2024;23(3):23–32. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2024-23-3-23-32.
19. Krivchikova AP, Yarosh AL, Oleynik NV, Soloshenko AV, Bratishcheva NN, Alenicheva MS. Method for optimizing surgical correction of rectocele by transvaginal access. Near-term and long-term results. Bulletin of Experimental and Clinical Surgery. 2023;16(1):33–39. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18499/2070-478X‑2023-16-1-33-39.
20. Shakhaliev RA, Kubin ND, Nikitina TP, Ionova TI, Shkarupa DD. Comprehensive assessment of the quality of life in patients with pelvic organ prolapse before surgical treatment: A prospective cohort observational study. Gynecology. 2024;26(3):216–222. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.26442/20795696.2024.3.202920.
21. Pescatori M, Spyrou M, Pulvurenti d’Urso A. A prospective evaluation of occult disorders in obstructed defecation using the ‘iceberg diagram’. Colorectal Disease. 2007;9(5):452–456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1463-1318.2006.01094.x.
22. Grimes CL, Schimpf MO, Wieslander CK, Sleemi A, Doyle P, Wu YM, et al. Surgical interventions for posterior compartment prolapse and obstructed defecation symptoms: A systematic review with clinical practice recommendations. International Urogynecology Journal. 2019;30(9):1433–1454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04001‑z.
23. Van Laarhoven CJ, Kamm MA, Bartram CI, Halligan S, Hawley PR, Phillips RK. Relationship between anatomic and symptomatic long-term results after rectocele repair for impaired defecation. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. 1999;42(2):204–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237129.
24. Shelygin YuA, Biryukov OM, Titov AYu, Fomenko OYu, Mudrov AA. DO the predictors of results of rectocele repair exist? Koloproktologia. 2015;(1):64–69. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/TKIXZJ.
25. Shelygin YuA, Titov AYu, Mudrov AA. Clinic, diagnostics and treatment of rectocele (literature review). Koloproktologia. 2005;(3):43–49. (In Russ.). EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ROQABV.
26. Nüssler E, Granåsen G, Nüssler EK, Bixo M, Löfgren M. Repair of recurrent rectocele with posterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable polypropylene mesh-patient-reported outcomes at 1‑year follow-up. International Urogynecology Journal. 2019;30(10):1679–1687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-03856‑y.
Review
For citations:
Bogdanov AV. Assessment of the Quality of Life of Patients Suffering from Lower Anterior Rectocele Grades 2–3 Using The SF‑36 Questionnaire. Ural Medical Journal. 2025;24(6):30–42. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.52420/umj.24.6.30. EDN: ZJDLRQ
Views:
51
Email this article 