Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome in 102 patients: Do different phenotypes make sense?. Issue 2 (February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gouriou, Claire; Siproudhis, Laurent; Chambaz, Marion; Ropert, Alain; Wallenhorst, Timothée; Merlini-l'Héritier, Alexandre; Carlo, Aurore; Bouguen, Guillaume; Brochard, Charlène
• Is Part Of: Digestive and liver disease. Volume 53:Issue 2(2021)
• Page Start: 190
• Page End: 195
• Publication Date: 2021-02
• Subjects: Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome -- Faecal incontinence -- Obstructed defecation -- Anorectal manometry -- Defecography; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Liver -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.33005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2020.10.041
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1590-8658

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Little is known about the pathophysiological mechanisms of solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS). Aims: We aim to identify the different phenotypes, taking into account complaints, anatomy and anorectal physiology. Methods: Complaints, endoscopy results, and physiology data of patients with histologically proven SRUS were collected and analysed. The associated anorectal diseases were faecal incontinence and obstructed defecation. The clinical aspects of SRUS were compared, and factors associated with anorectal diseases were identified. Results: Overall, 102 consecutive patients were included. The predominant lesion was a rectal ulcer (66%), and inflammation of the rectal wall was present in 42% of patients. Abnormal rectal capacities and/or rectal perception was observed in more than half. Nearly half (52%) of the patients met the criteria for obstructed defecation and they tended to more frequently have psychiatric disease (66.7% vs 33.3%; p =0.07). Patients with faecal incontinence (17%) reported more self-perception of anal procidentia ( p =0.01) and were more likely to have inflammation of the rectal wall ( p =0.02), high-grade internal rectal procidentia ( p =0.06) and anal hypotonia ( p =0.004); their maximum tolerable volume was lower ( p =0.004). Conclusion: The characteristics of patients with SRUS suggest different phenotypes. This may be a way to develop a comprehensive treatment strategy.