Perry, William R.

BACKGROUND: Obstructed defecation syndrome and posterior compartment (rectal) prolapse significantly impact patients’ quality of life. Pelvic floor physical therapy is a critical part of multidisciplinary management for these conditions, yet there is little guidance or standardization to guide providers’ referral practices, diagnostic approaches, or treatment. OBJECTIVE: To develop multidisciplinary consensus-based recommendations for incorporating pelvic floor physical therapy into the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome and posterior compartment prolapse. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for English-language studies on pelvic floor physical therapy, obstructed defecation, diagnostic criteria, imaging, and pelvic organ prolapse. STUDY SELECTION: Studies identified in the literature search were reviewed by multidisciplinary expert subgroups, who formulated draft statements based on the available evidence. INTERVENTION: Consensus meetings were conducted and included experts from colorectal surgery, urogynecology, physical therapy, gastroenterology, radiology, and urology. Statements were evaluated via structured discussions and voting processes. Those reaching more than 70% consensus were adopted for inclusion. Statements underwent final review and editing by the leadership of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the International Urogynecological Association. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus statements addressed referral criteria, diagnostic evaluations, therapy protocols, timing, coordination with surgery, and management of anatomical abnormalities. RESULTS: Fifteen statements reached consensus. Key recommendations included prompt referral to pelvic floor physical therapy for patients without contraindications, individualized therapy based on appropriate diagnostic evaluation and patient goals, timing of pelvic floor physical therapy relative to surgery, and trauma-informed patient care. LIMITATIONS: Recommendations primarily reflect expert consensus due to limited high-quality evidence. Variability in practitioner expertise and geographic access to trained therapists are barriers to consistent implementation. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide structured guidance for integrating pelvic floor physical therapy into the management of obstructed defecation syndrome and rectal prolapse. Additional research and standardized training are essential to optimize patient outcomes.

Objective: To compare robotic-assisted proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (R-IPAA) outcomes and laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA within a specialized robotic surgery center, using matching techniques to minimize potential confounding factors. Background: Minimally invasive approaches, particularly laparoscopy, have improved outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and familial adenomatous polyposis undergoing IPAA. Robotic-assisted surgery offers potential technical advantages, but its definitive superiority over laparoscopy in this context remains under debate. Methods: This retrospective, “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology”–compliant study analyzed 234 consecutive patients undergoing IPAA (117 robotic and 117 laparoscopic). Data encompassed patient demographics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes. We employed various matching techniques to address potential bias. Primary endpoints focused on 30-day complications, readmissions, and reoperations, with secondary endpoints including hospital stay, blood loss, and stoma closure rates. Results: R-IPAA demonstrated a lower conversion rate to open surgery ( P = 0.02), a shorter hospital stay ( P = 0.04), and reduced blood loss ( P = 0.0003) compared with laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA. While overall 30-day morbidity rates were similar ( P = 0.4), matched analyses suggested a trend towards fewer reoperations and 3-month IPAA-associated complications after diverting loop ileostomy closure in the robotic group. However, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In a high-volume robotic surgery center, R-IPAA reduced the risk of conversion to open surgery while reducing intraoperative blood loss and providing shorter lengths of stay with equivalent perioperative outcomes. Promising trends to reduce 30-day reoperations and surgical complications after diverting loop ileostomy closure were observed after a matching analysis.