Comparison of perineal operations with abdominal operations for full-thickness rectal prolapse. World J Surg. 2010;34:1116-1122. [PMID: 20127331 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-010-0429-0]

An examination of rectal prolapse surgery patients' quality of life and symptoms using patient-reported outcome instruments: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

We measured changes in self-reported health and symptoms attributable to rectal prolapse surgery using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures.

METHODS

A prospectively recruited cohort of patients scheduled for rectal prolapse repair in Vancouver, Canada between 2013 and 2021 were surveyed before and 6-months after surgery using seven PROs: the EuroQol Five-Dimension Instrument (EQ-5D-5L), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), Pain Intensity, Interference with Enjoyment of Life and General Activity (PEG), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), and the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (FIQL).

RESULTS

We included 46 participants who reported improvements in health status (EQ-5D-5L; p ​< ​0.01), pain interference (PEG; p ​< ​0.01), depressive symptoms (PHQ-9; p ​= ​0.01), fecal incontinence severity (FISI; p ​< ​0.01), gastrointestinal quality of life (GIQLI; p ​< ​0.01), and fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQL) related to lifestyle (p ​= ​0.02), coping and behaviour (p ​= ​0.02) and depression and self-perception (p ​= ​0.01).

CONCLUSION

Surgical repair of rectal prolapse improved patients' quality of life with meaningful improvements in fecal incontinence severity and pain, and symptom interference with daily activities.

Ventral mesh rectopexy for recurrent rectal prolapse after Altemeier perineal proctosigmoidectomy: feasibility and outcomes

PURPOSE

Recurrence of rectal prolapse following the Altemeier procedure is reported with rates up to 40%. The optimal surgical management of recurrences has limited data available. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a favored procedure for primary rectal prolapse, but its role in managing recurrences after Altemeier is unclear. VMR for recurrent prolapse involves implanting the mesh on the colon, which has a thinner wall, more active peristalsis, no mesorectum, less peritoneum available for covering the mesh, and potential diverticula. These factors can affect mesh-related complications such as erosion, migration, or infection. This study assessed the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of VMR for recurrent rectal prolapse after the Altemeier procedure.

METHODS

We queried our prospectively maintained database between 01/01/2008 and 06/30/2022 for patients who had experienced a recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse following Altemeier's perineal proctosigmoidectomy and subsequently underwent ventral mesh rectopexy.

RESULTS

Ten women with a median age of 67 years (range 61) and a median BMI of 27.8 kg/m2 (range 9) were included. Five (50%) had only one Altemeier, and five (50%) had multiple rectal prolapse surgeries, including Altemeier before VMR. No mesh-related complications occurred during a 65-month (range 165) median follow-up period. Three patients (30%) experienced minor postoperative complications unrelated to the mesh. Long-term complications were chronic abdominal pain and incisional hernia in one patient, respectively. One out of five (20%) patients with only one previous prolapse repair had a recurrence, while all patients (100%) with multiple prior repairs recurred.

CONCLUSION

Mesh implantation on the colon is possible without adverse reactions. However, high recurrence rates in patients with multiple previous surgeries raise doubts about using VMR for secondary or tertiary recurrences.

Colonoscopy-assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy (CAPS) for complete rectal prolapse treatment: Case series

Background and study aims We have previously reported on the effectiveness of colonoscopy-assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy (CAPS) for sigmoid volvulus treatment. This study describes the CAPS application to treat complete rectal prolapse by straightening and fixing the rectum. Complete rectal prolapse is common in older women. Due to their comorbidities, management must comprise a simple, safe, and reliable surgical method not involving general anesthesia or colon resection. Patients and methods We enrolled 13 patients in our outpatient department diagnosed with complete rectal prolapse between June 2016 and 2021. The endoscope was advanced into the anterior proximal rectal wall, straightening the intussuscepted sigmoid colon and rectum to approximate the puncture site. The fixation sites were anesthetized with 1% xylocaine, and a 2-mm skin incision was made using a scalpel. A two-shot anchor was used to fix the sigmoid colon to the abdominal wall (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Results The median patient age was 88 years (range: 50-94). The median CAPS procedure time was 30 minutes (range: 20-60). In one patient, the transverse colon was accidentally punctured and interposed between the abdominal wall and sigmoid colon, requiring a laparotomy to remove the causative fixation thread and provide re-fixation. Fecal incontinence was resolved in 10 of 13 cases. Conclusions CAPS is a quick and simple procedure. In addition, it is a treatment option for complete rectal prolapse that can be performed under local anesthesia.

Current diagnostic tools and treatment modalities for rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus. It is a rare condition, and only affects 0.5% of the general population. Multiple treatment modalities have been described, which have changed significantly over time. Particularly in the last decade, laparoscopic and robotic surgical approaches with different mobilization techniques, combined with medical therapies, have been widely implemented. Because patients have presented with a wide range of complaints (ranging from abdominal discomfort to incomplete bowel evacuation, mucus discharge, constipation, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence), understanding the extent of complaints and ruling out differential diagnoses are essential for choosing a tailored surgical procedure. It is crucial to assess these additional symptoms and their severities using preoperative scoring systems. Additionally, radiological and physiological evaluations may explain some vague symptoms and reveal concomitant pelvic disorders. However, there is no consensus on or standardization of the optimal extent of dissection, type of procedure, and materials used for rectal fixation; this makes providing maximum benefits to patients with minimal complications difficult. Even recent publications and systematic reviews have not recommended the most appropriate treatment options. This review explains the appropriate diagnostic tools for different conditions and summarizes the current treatment approaches based on existing literature and expert opinions.

Transanal rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

PURPOSE

The surgical management of patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) continues to remain a challenge in the laparoscopic era. This study retrospectively assesses a cohort of patients undergoing a transanal suture sacro rectopexy supported by sclerosant injection into the presacral space under ultrasound guidance.

METHODS

Patients with FTRP underwent a sutured transrectal presacral fixation of 2/3 of the circumference of the rectum from the third sacral vertebra to the sacrococcygeal junction through a side-viewing operating proctoscope. The procedure was supplemented by ultrasound-guided injection into the retrorectal space of a 2 mL solution of sodium tetradecyl sulfate/polidocanol mixed with air. Patients were functionally assessed before and 6 months after surgery with the Agachan constipation score and the Pescatori incontinence score.

RESULTS

There were 36 adult patients (26 males; the range of age, 23-92 years). The mean operative time was 27 minutes (range, 23-50 minutes) with no recorded perioperative morbidity. The median follow-up was 66 months (range, 48-84 months) with 1 (2.8%) recurrence presenting 18 months after surgery. There were 19 patients (52.8%) who presented with incontinence before surgery with 17 out of 19 (89.5%) reporting improvement in their Pescatori score (P<0.001). No patient had worsening incontinence and there were no de novo incontinence cases. Constipation scores improved in 23 out of 36 patients (63.9%) with a mean score reduction difference of 7.91 (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Transanal sutured sacral rectopexy with supplemental presacral sclerosant injection is safe and effective in the management of FTRP with sustained improvement in bowel function.

Colonoscopy-assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy for a complete rectal prolapse: A case report

Colonoscopy‐assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy is a simple and swift procedure that does not require general anesthesia. While we first developed this procedure for treating sigmoid volvulus, we herein present the first case in which we used it to correct a complete rectal prolapse in an older patient. Existing treatment modalities for rectal prolapses are limited by high recurrence rates, greater invasiveness, and greater complications; thus, there is a need for minimally invasive techniques that are associated with lower recurrence rates and fewer complications. In this case, a woman in her 90s complained of persistent fecal incontinence, dysuria, anal pain, and difficulty in walking. She was diagnosed with a complete rectal prolapse of 15 cm and was treated with colonoscopy‐assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy. The sigmoid colon was tractioned colonoscopically and fixed to the abdominal wall to immobilize the prolapsed rectum. The patient developed no complications intraoperatively and postoperatively and experienced no recurrence during a 5‐year postoperative period. This report documents the first case wherein colonoscopy‐assisted percutaneous sigmoidopexy was used successfully to correct a complete rectal prolapse.

Mesh erosion into the rectum after laparoscopic posterior rectopexy: A case report

Introduction

Rectal prolapse typically presents in elderly women with protruding full-thickness rectum from the anus. Rectopexy using mesh is known to be a highly curative treatment for rectal prolapse, however, this procedure carries the risk of severe complication as mesh erosion.

Presentation of case

A 78-year-old woman who had undergone laparoscopic posterior rectopexy 4 years earlier visited the outpatient clinic with a complaint of bloody stool. A colonoscopy and computed tomography revealed that part of the mesh had migrated into the rectal lumen at 8 cm from the anal verge. Based on the above findings, a diagnosis of mesh erosion into the rectum was made. Complete removal of the mesh and tacker with rectal resection was performed. Before rectopexy, the patient had severe fecal incontinence, and her anal sphincter function was decreased, therefore, Permanent colostomy was indicated instead of anastomosis. In the resected specimen, the mesh was folded and placed in the mesenteric fat of the posterior wall of the rectum, with the corner of the edge of the mesh protruding into the inside lumen.

Discussion

Mesh erosion typically occurs when using mesh made of synthetic mesh and non-absorbable threads; it might induce chronic irritation and friction due to mesh shrinkage.

Conclusion

To prevent mesh erosion, it is important to pay attention to the mesh materials used and ensure secure fixation.

•

Mesh erosion into rectum after Laparoscopic posterior rectopexy was reported.

•

Complete removal of the mesh and tacker with rectal resection was needed.

•

Colostomy was made because of existence of severe fecal incontinence, preoperatively.

•

Paying attention to the Shrinkage and secure fixation of synthetic mesh.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

External rectal prolapse is a relatively rare disease, in which male patients account for a minority. The selection of abdominal repair or perineal repair for male patients has rarely been investigated.

Methods

Fifty-one male patients receiving abdominal repair (laparoscopic ventral rectopexy) or perineal repair (Delorme or Altemeier procedures) at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) between March 2013 and September 2019 were retrospectively analysed. We compared the recurrence, complication rate, post-operative defecation disorder, length of stay, and quality of life between the abdominal and perineal groups.

Results

Of the 51 patients, 45 had a complete follow-up, with a median of 48.5 months (range, 22.8–101.8 months). A total of 35 patients were under age 40 years. The complication rate associated with abdominal repair was less than that associated with perineal repair (0% vs 20.7%, P = 0.031) and the recurrence rate was also lower (9.5% vs 41.7%, P = 0.018). Multivariate analysis showed that perineal repair (odds ratio, 9.827; 95% confidence interval, 1.296–74.50; P = 0.027) might be a risk factor for recurrence. Moreover, only perineal repair significantly improved post-operative constipation status (preoperative vs post-operative, 72.4% vs 25.0%, P = 0.001). There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. No patient's sexual function was affected by the surgery.

Conclusions

Both surgical approaches were safe in men. Compared with perineal repair, the complication rate and recurrence rate for abdominal repair were lower. However, perineal repair was better able to correct constipation.

The utility of the Altemeier procedure in strangulated rectal procidentia secondary to rectal cancer. A case report

Introduction and importance

Altemeier rectosigmoidectomy has been cited in the literature as a suitable approach for incarcerated rectal prolapse when a large segment of bowel is involved. However, the literature is devoid of cases that employed the technique as an oncological procedure for rectal carcinoma. For this reason, this case report heralds a new perspective on an old technique.

Case presentation

We describe the case of a male in his 6th decade who presented with stage four rectal cancer. Computed tomography imaging showed a rectal mass at the rectosigmoid junction with pelvic lymphadenopathy and a solitary hepatic lesion in segment two of the liver. While admitted to the hospital a 16 cm segment of bowel containing the mass prolapsed and became incarcerated, eventually becoming necrotic. A modification of the Altemeier procedure was performed along with a diverting ileostomy and hepatic wedge resection of the solitary metastases. Histological assessment of the surgical specimens confirmed that adequate resection margins were obtained with one of twenty-one lymph nodes positive for malignancy. He is currently being followed up in the outpatient oncology clinic and has commenced adjuvant chemotherapy.

Clinical discussion

Synchronous excision of rectal carcinoma with hepatic metastasectomy is a feasible surgery even in the emergency setting and can offer improved patient survival.

Conclusion

The combination of both an abdominal and perineal approach was suitable for this patient given his improved quality of life and negative pathological margins.

•

Rectal prolapse can be the first presentation of rectal cancer.

•

Strangulated rectal procidentia should be addressed by the perineal route.

•

Altemeier procedure can be utilized for oncological resection of rectal cancer.

•

Low volume liver resection is feasible without adjustment of central venous pressure.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

External rectal prolapse (ERP) is a debilitating condition in which surgery plays an important role. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of abdominal approaches (AA) and perineal approaches (PA) to ERP.

Methods

This was a PRISMA-compliant systematic review with meta-analysis. Studies published between 1990 and 2021 were retrieved. The primary endpoint was recurrence at the last available follow-up. Secondary endpoints included factors associated with recurrence and function. All studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane tool.

Results

Fifteen studies involving 1611 patients (AA = 817; PA = 794) treated for ERP were included, three of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 114 patients (AA = 54; PA = 60)). Duration of follow-up ranged from 12 to 82 months. Recurrence in non-randomized studies was 7.7 per cent in AA versus 20.1 per cent in PA (odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.17 to 0.50; P < 0.001, I² = 45 per cent). In RCTs, there was no significant difference (9.8 per cent versus 16.3 per cent, AA versus PA (OR 0.82, 95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 2.37; P = 0.72, I² = 0.0 per cent)). Age at surgery and duration of follow-up were risk factors for recurrence. Following AA, the recurrence rates were 10.1 per cent and 6.2 per cent in patients aged 65 years and older and less than 65 years of age, respectively (effect size [e.s.] 7.7, 95 per cent c.i. 4.5 to 11.5). Following PA, rates were 27 per cent and 16.3 per cent (e.s. 20.1, 95 per cent c.i. 13 to 28.2). Extending follow-up to at least 40 months increased the likelihood of recurrence. The median duration of hospital stay was 4.9 days after PA versus 7.2 days after AA. Overall, incontinence was less likely after AA (OR 0.32), but constipation occurred more frequently (OR 1.68). Most studies were retrospective, and several outcomes from RCTs were not consistent with those observed in non-RCTs.

Conclusion

The overall risk of recurrence of ERP appears to be higher with PA versus AA. Incontinence is less frequent after AA but at the cost of increased constipation. Age at surgery and duration of follow-up are associated with increased risk of recurrence, which warrants adequate reporting of future studies on this topic.

Longer Prolapsed Rectum Length Increases Recurrence Risk After Delorme's Procedure

Purpose

Risk factors for recurrence of rectal prolapse after surgery remain unclear. Delorme’s procedure is often selected for relatively small-sized rectal prolapse, but there are few reports discussing the association between prolapsed rectum length and prolapse recurrence after Delorme’s procedure. We hypothesized that patients with longer rectal prolapses are at a higher risk of recurrence after Delorme’s procedure.

Methods

The study population comprised patients with rectal prolapse who underwent Delorme’s procedure between January 2014 and December 2019 at Tokyo Yamate Medical Center. We extracted data on patient age, sex, body mass index, previous history of anal surgery, previous history of surgery for rectal prolapse, and length of prolapse, to identify risk factors for prolapse recurrence.

Results

Altogether, 96 patients were eligible for analysis. The median length of the prolapsed rectum was 3.0 cm (range, 1.0–6.6 cm). Twenty-four patients (25.0%) experienced recurrence after Delorme’s procedure after a median of 7.5 months (interquartile range, 3.2–20.9 months). Multivariate analysis revealed that longer prolapsed rectum length increased the risk of recurrence after Delorme’s procedure (hazard ratio, 6.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.83–21.50; P<0.001).

Conclusion

The length of the prolapsed rectum should be measured before Delorme’s procedure for rectal prolapse, because length is associated with a risk of recurrence after the surgery.

Does the Length of the Prolapsed Rectum Impact Outcome of Surgical Repair?

BACKGROUND

There are many surgical options for the treatment of rectal prolapse with varying recurrence rates reported. The association between rectal prolapse length and recurrence risk has not been explored previously.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether length of prolapse predicts a risk of recurrence.

DESIGN

Consecutive patients from a prospectively collected institutional review board-approved data registry were evaluated.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Colorectal Surgery.

PATIENTS

All patients from 2010 to 2018 who underwent surgical intervention for rectal prolapse were included.

INTERVENTION

Perineal repair with Delorme procedure and Altemeier, as well as abdominal repair with ventral rectopexy, resection rectopexy, and posterior rectopexy, was included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prolapse length, recurrence, type of surgery, and primary or secondary procedure were measured.

RESULTS

In total, 280 patients had prolapse surgery over 8 years, mean age was 59 years (SD = 18 y), and 92.4% were female. Seventy percent had a prolapse length documented as <5 cm, and 30% had prolapse length documented as >5 cm. The mean prolapse length was 4.8 cm (SD = 2.9 cm). The overall rate of recurrent prolapse was 18%. There were 51 patients who had a recurrent prolapse after their first prolapse surgery. Factors significant for recurrence on univariate analysis were a perineal approach (p = 0.03), previous Delorme procedure (p < 0.001), and prolapse length >5 cm (p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis there was significantly increased recurrence with length of prolapse >5 cm (OR = 2.2 (95% CI, 1.1-4.4); p = 0.02) and having a previous Delorme procedure (OR = 4.0 (95% CI, 1.6-10.1); p = 0.004). For each 1-cm increase in prolapse, the odds of recurrence increased by a factor of 2.2.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study of a heterogenous patient cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The greater the length of prolapsed rectum, the greater the risk of recurrence. The length of prolapse should be considered when planning the most appropriate surgical repair to modify the recurrence risk. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B463. EL TAMAÑO DEL RECTO PROLAPSADO AFECTA EL RESULTADO DE LA REPARACIÓN QUIRÚRGICA?: Existen muchas opciones quirúrgicas para el tratamiento del prolapso de recto con diferentes tasas de recurrencia publicadas. La asociación entre el tamaño del prolapso rectal y el riesgo de recurrencia no se han explorado previamente.Determinar si el largo en el tamaño del prolapso predice un riesgo de recidiva.Se evaluaron pacientes consecutivos de un registro de datos aprobado por el IRB recopilado prospectivamente.Departamento de cirugía colorrectal de la Clínica Cleveland, en Ohio.Todos aquellos pacientes que entre 2010 y 2018 se sometieron a una intervención quirúrgica por prolapso completo de recto.La reparación perineal incluyó los procedimientos de Altemeier y Delorme. Las reparaciones abdominales incluidas fueron la rectopexia ventral, la rectopexia con resección y la rectopexia posterior.Tamaño del prolapso, recurrencia, tipo de intervención quirúrgica y tipo de procedimiento (primario o secundario).En total, 280 pacientes se sometieron a cirugía de prolapso rectal durante 8 años, la edad media fue de 59 años (DE 18) donde el 92,4% eran mujeres. El 70% tenían un tamaño de prolapso documentado como < 5 cm y 30% tenían un tamaño de prolapso documentada como > 5 cm. La longitud media del prolapso fue de 4,8 cm (DE 2,9).La tasa general de recidiva del prolapso fue de 18%. Hubo 51 pacientes que presentaron recidiva del prolapso después de una primera cirugía. Los factores significativos para la recidiva en el análisis univariado fueron el abordaje perineal (p = 0.03), un procedimiento de Delorme previo (p <0.001) y el tamaño del prolapso > 5 cm (p = 0.04). En el análisis multivariado, hubo un aumento significativo de la recidiva en aquellos prolapsos de > 5 cm (OR 2,2; IC del 95%: 1,09-4,4; p = 0,02) con un procedimiento de Delorme previo (OR 4; IC del 95%: 1,6 a 10,1; p = 0,004). Por cada centímetro de tamaño del prolapso, las probabilidades de recidiva aumentaron en un factor de 2,2.Estudio retrospectivo de una cohorte de pacientes heterogénea.Cuanto mayor es el tamaño del recto prolapsado, mayor es el riesgo de recidiva. Se debe evaluar muy cuidadosamente el tamaño de los prolapsos para escoger la corrección quirúrgica más apropiada y así disminuir el riesgo de recidivas.Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B463. (Traducción-Dr Xavier Delgadillo).

Abdominal ventral rectopexy with colectomy for obstructed defecation syndrome: An alternative option for selected patients

BACKGROUND

Abdominal ventral rectopexy (AVR) with colectomy is controversial in the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Literature data on this technique for ODS are very limited.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of AVR with colectomy for selected patients with ODS.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent AVR with colectomy for ODS were identified prospectively from 2016 to 2017 in our department. Patient demographics, perioperative surgical results, and postoperative follow-up outcomes were collected and analyzed. Long-term follow-up was evaluated with standardized questionnaires. The severity of symptoms was assessed by the objective Wexner Constipation Score (WCS) and ODS Score. The quality of life was assessed by the Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score. Functional outcome was compared pre- and post-operatively for each patient. The primary outcomes were determined by the improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures were operating time, postoperative length of stay, morbidity and mortality, improvement of pelvic floor structure, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Four patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery, and two patients underwent a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. The mean operating time for the robotic approach was 243 min (range 160–300 min), and the mean operating time for the laparoscopic approach was 230 min (range 220-240 min). The mean postoperative length of stay was 8.2 d (range 6-12 d). There was no conversion to open procedure and no postoperative mortality. No urinary retention, wound infection, prolonged ileus, pelvic infection and anastomosis leakage occurred. Six patients were followed up for 36 mo. The WCS, ODS, and Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score improved significantly postoperatively (P < 0.05). The WCS and ODS scores showed the best remission and stabilization at 6 to 12 mo after surgery. There was no recurrence or novel constipation after surgery. None of the patients used laxative medication.

CONCLUSION

Robotic and laparoscopic-assisted ventral rectopexy with colectomy is a safe and effective procedure for selected patients with ODS. However, comprehensive preoperative evaluation and careful patient selection are essential.

Abdominal versus Perineal Approach for Treatment of Rectal Prolapse: Comparable Safety in a Propensity-matched Cohort

Abdominal operations for rectal prolapse are associated with lower recurrence rates than perineal procedures but presumed higher morbidity. Therefore, perineal procedures are recommended for patients deemed unfit for abdominal repair. Consequently, bias confounds retrospective comparisons of the two approaches. To clarify the impact of operative approach on outcomes, we analyzed abdominal and perineal procedures in a propensity score-matched analysis. We selected patients undergoing surgery for rectal prolapse from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set from 2005 to 2010. We grouped procedures as abdominal or perineal. We identified preoperative variables predictive of complications and regressed against operative approach. The resulting propensity score was used to select a matched cohort with similar clinical risk. We identified 2188 patients (848 abdominal [38.8%]; 1340 perineal [61.2%]). Patients undergoing the perineal approach had higher rates of most risk variables. Propensity matching resulted in 563 matched pairs (1126 patients) with similar clinical risk. In this matched cohort, no significant difference was found in the rate of any complication between the operative approaches; mortality was 0.9 per cent in each group ( P = 1.0). Relative risk for major morbidity after abdominal approach was 1.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 2.10; P = 0.15). Although many patients with rectal prolapse are high risk for abdominal surgery, our study indicates that many patients treated by perineal repair could be safely treated with a more durable operation.

Modified Stapled Transanal Rectal Resection Procedure for Limited Rectal Prolapse: A Viable Alternative to the Delorme Operation

Purpose. The optimal surgical approach for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) remains controversial. In China, patients with limited FTRP (<5 cm in length) are usually managed by perineal surgery. We retrospectively assessed the outcome of Delorme's procedure and compared it with modified stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR). Methods. The study was conducted in 2 public tertiary referral centers in China with modified STARR or Delorme's procedure performed by experienced surgeons. Outcomes assessed recurrence, operative times, blood loss, complications, length of hospital stay, and continence and constipation scoring. Results. Between December 2012 and May 2019, 65 patients were assessed, including 48 with modified STARR (group 1) and 17 with Delorme's procedure (group 2). The median follow-up was 22 months (range, 3-86 months). The mean operative time for group 1 was 37.4 ± 17.5 minutes vs 74.3 ± 30.6 minutes for group 2 (P < .001). The blood loss for group 1 was significantly lower than that for group 2 (17.4 ± 15.9 mL vs 27.8 ± 16.7 mL, respectively; P = .028). There was no significant difference between groups in recurrence (group 1 18.8% vs group 2 23.5%; P = .944) with no effect of operation type. Both procedures showed improvement in constipation and continence scoring with a similar impact. Conclusions. Modified STARR and the Delorme operation are comparable in managing limited FTRP with superior results in operative time and blood loss for STARR.

Long-term outcomes of surgical management of rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Various surgical options for rectal prolapse are available but none have been shown to be clearly superior. The aims of this study were to investigate the long-term recurrence rate of a variety of surgical approaches, their associated morbidities and the types of reoperation used to treat recurrence.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of all cases of rectal prolapse surgery within one colorectal surgical unit between January 2000 and June 2017. Abdominal approaches consisted of rectopexy (RP) and resection rectopexy (RRP); perineal approaches included perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PR) and Delorme's repair (DR). Complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The median follow-up was 4.5 years (interquartile range 1.5-10.1, maximum 16.5). Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier to determine recurrence rates.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were included in the study. The numbers for each procedure were: DR (n = 55), RRP (n = 44), RP (n = 38) and PR (n = 20). The majority were females (94%). The perineal group were significantly older than the abdominal group (80 versus 67 years, P = 0.0001). At 5 years, the recurrence rates were 52%, 30%, 5% and 3% for DR, PR, RP and RRP, respectively. Morbidity was highest in PR (20%) followed by RRP (18%), RP (16%) and DR (7%) (n.s.). The overall morbidity rates for perineal group and abdominal group were 10.7% and 17.1%, respectively (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Abdominal approaches have a significantly lower recurrence rate at 5 years but tend to be associated with higher morbidity.

Consensus Statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse, rectal procidentia, "complete" prolapse or "third-degree" prolapse is the full-thickness prolapse of the rectal wall through the anal canal and has a significant impact on quality of life. The incidence of rectal prolapse has been estimated to be approximately 2.5 per 100,000 inhabitants with a clear predominance among elderly women. The aim of this consensus statement was to provide evidence-based data to allow an individualized and appropriate management and treatment of complete rectal prolapse. The strategy used to search for evidence was based on application of electronic sources such as MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Review Library, CINAHL and EMBASE. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Gastroenterology's Chronic Constipation Task Force. Five evidence levels were defined. The recommendations were graded A, B, and C.

Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: Functional Outcomes after Surgery

Aims  Rectal prolapse is a debilitating and unpleasant condition adversely affecting the quality of life. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is recognized as one of the treatment options. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes after a standardized LVMR.

Methods  A cohort of patients who underwent LVMR from 2011 to 2015 were contacted and asked to fill questionnaires about their symptoms before and after the surgery. Three questionnaires based on measurement of Wexner fecal incontinence (WFI), obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS), and Birmingham Bowel and Urinary Symptom (BBUS) scores were used to assess the changes in postoperative functional outcomes. Some additional questions were also added to further assess bowel dysfunction.

Results  There were 58 female patients with a mean age of 62.74 ± 15.20 (26–86) years in this cohort. About 70% of the patients participated in the study and returned the filled questionnaires. There was a significant overall improvement across all three scores (WFI: p  = 0.001, ODS: p  = 0.001, and BBUS: p  = 0.001). Some individual components in the scoring systems did not improve to patient's satisfaction. No perioperative complication or conversion to an open procedure was reported in this study. Three recurrences were seen in the redo cases.

Conclusion  LVMR is a promising way of dealing with rectal prolapse. A careful patient selection, appropriate preoperative workup, and a meticulous surgical technique undoubtedly transform the postoperative outcomes.

Trends in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a population analysis

PURPOSE

Rectal prolapse is a common condition, with conflicting opinions on optimal surgical management. Existing literature is predominantly composed of case series, with a dearth of evidence demonstrating current, real-world practice. This study investigated recent national trends in management of rectal prolapse in the Republic of Ireland (ROI).

METHODS

This population analysis used a national database to identify patients admitted in the ROI primarily for the management of rectal prolapse, as defined by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10). Demographics, procedures, comorbidities, and outcomes were obtained for patients admitted from 2005 to 2015 inclusive.

RESULTS

There were 2648 admissions with a primary diagnosis of rectal prolapse; 39.3% underwent surgical correction. The majority were treated with either a perineal resection (47.2%) or an abdominal rectopexy ± resection (45.1%). The population-adjusted rate of operative intervention increased over the study period, from 25 to 42 per million (p < 0.001), with no change in the mean age of patients over time (p = 0.229). The application of a laparoscopic approach increased over time (p = 0.001). Patients undergoing an abdominal rectopexy were younger than those undergoing a perineal procedure (64.1 ± 17.3 versus 75.2 ± 15.5 years, p < 0.001) despite having a similar Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.097). The mortality rate for elective repair was 0.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the popularization of ventral mesh rectopexy over the study period, perineal resection Delorme's procedure remains the most common procedure employed for the correction of rectal prolapse in the ROI, with specific approach determined by age.

What operation for recurrent rectal prolapse after previous Delorme’s procedure? A practical reality

AIM: To report our experience with perineal repair (Delorme’s procedure) of rectal prolapse with particular focus on treatment of the recurrence.

METHODS: Clinical records of 40 patients who underwent Delorme’s procedure between 2003 and 2014 were reviewed to obtain the following data: Gender; duration of symptoms, length of prolapse, operation time, ASA grade, length of post-operative stay, procedure-related complications, development and treatment of recurrent prolapse. Analysis of post-operative complications, rate and time of recurrence and factors influencing the choice of the procedure for recurrent disease was conducted. Continuous variables were expressed as the median with interquartile range (IQR). Statistical analysis was carried out using the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS: Median age at the time of surgery was 76 years (IQR: 71-81.5) and there were 38 females and 2 males. The median duration of symptoms was 6 mo (IQR: 3.5-12) and majority of patients presented electively whereas four patients presented in the emergency department with irreducible rectal prolapse. The median length of prolapse was 5 cm (IQR: 5-7), median operative time was 100 min (IQR: 85-120) and median post-operative stay was 4 d (IQR: 3-6). Approximately 16% of the patients suffered minor complications such as - urinary retention, delayed defaecation and infected haematoma. One patient died constituting post-operative mortality of 2.5%. Median follow-up was 6.5 mo (IQR: 2.15-16). Overall recurrence rate was 28% (n = 12). Recurrence rate for patients undergoing an urgent Delorme’s procedure who presented as an emergency was higher (75.0%) compared to those treated electively (20.5%), P value 0.034. Median time interval from surgery to the development of recurrence was 16 mo (IQR: 5-30). There were three patients who developed an early recurrence, within two weeks of the initial procedure. The management of the recurrent prolapse was as follows: No further intervention (n = 1), repeat Delorme’s procedure (n = 3), Altemeier’s procedure (n = 5) and rectopexy with faecal diversion (n = 3). One patient was lost during follow up.

CONCLUSION: Delorme’s procedure is a suitable treatment for rectal prolapse due to low morbidity and mortality and acceptable rate of recurrence. The management of the recurrent rectal prolapse is often restricted to the pelvic approach by the same patient-related factors that influenced the choice of the initial operation, i.e., Delorme’s procedure. Early recurrence developing within days or weeks often represents a technical failure and may require abdominal rectopexy with faecal diversion.

Comparison of transabdominal and transperineal procedures for complete rectal prolapse: Analysis of 104 cases

AIM: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of transabdominal and transperineal surgical procedures for patients with complete rectal prolapse.

METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of patients with complete rectal prolapse who received surgical treatment at the Central Hospital of Xinxiang between March 1995 and May 2014. Patients were classified according to the type of operation: transabdominal procedure (n = 64) and transperineal procedure (n = 40). Clinical effects were compared for the two groups.

RESULTS: There were more young patients and males in the transabdominal group than in the transperineal group. Compared with the transperineal group, the transabdominal group had longer operating time (165 min ± 67 min vs 70 min ± 38 min, P < 0.001), longer hospital stay (10 d ± 4 d vs 7 d ± 2 d, P < 0.001), but a lower overall recurrence rate (6.3% vs 15.0%, P < 0.05). The overall rate of complications was similar between the two groups (10.9% vs 6.8%, P > 0.05). The patients in the transabdominal group complained more frequently of constipation than of incontinence, conversely, in the transperineal group of incontinence than of constipation.

CONCLUSION: The two approaches for treating complete rectal prolapse did not differ with regard to postoperative morbidity, but recurrence occurs frequently among patients in the transperineal group. Surgeons should carefully assess the condition of patients before operation and select the appropriate surgical approach for treating complete rectal prolapse.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using biologic mesh for the treatment of obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse: a critical appraisal of the first 100 cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is gaining wider acceptance as the preferred procedure to correct internal as well as external rectal prolapse associated with obstructed defaecation syndrome and/or faecal incontinence. Very few reports exist on the use of biologic mesh for LVR. The aim of our study was to report the complication and recurrence rate of our first 100 cases of LVR for symptomatic internal rectal prolapse and/or rectocele using a porcine dermal collagen mesh.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data on LVR for internal rectal prolapse were analysed. Surgical complications and functional results in terms of faecal incontinence (measured with the Faecal Incontinence Severity Index = FISI) and constipation (measured with the Wexner Constipation Score = WCS) at 3, 6 and 12 months were analysed. It was considered an improvement if FISI or WCS scores were reduced by at least 25 % and a cure if the FISI score decreased to <10 and the WCS decreased to <5.

RESULTS

Between April 2009 and April 2013, 100 consecutive female patients (mean age 63 years, range 24-88 years) underwent LVR. All patients had internal rectal prolapse (grade III [n = 25] and grade IV [n = 75] according to the Oxford classification) and rectocele. Mean operative time was 85 ± 40 min. Conversion rate to open technique was 1 %. There was no post-operative mortality. Overall 16 patients (16 %) experienced 18 complications, including rectal perforation (n = 1), small bowel obstruction (n = 2), urinary tract infection (n = 8), subcutaneous emphysema (n = 3), wound haematoma (n = 2), long lasting sacral pain (n = 1) and incisional hernia (1). Median post-operative length of stay was 2 days. Ninety-eight out of 100 patients completed follow-up. At the end of follow-up, the mean FISI score improved from 8.4 (±4.0 standard deviation (SD) p = 0.003) to 3.3 ± 2.3 SD (p = 0.04). Incontinence improved in 37 out of 43 patients (86 %), and 31 patients (72 %) were cured. Similarly, the mean WCS score improved from 18.4 ± 11.6 SD to 5.4 ± 4.1 SD (p = 0.04). Constipation improved in 82 out of 89 patients (92 %), and 70 patients (79 %) were cured. No worsening of continence status, constipation or sexual function was observed. Fourteen patients (14 %) experienced persistence or recurrence of prolapse.

CONCLUSIONS

LVR using biologic mesh is a safe and effective procedure for improving symptoms of obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence in patients with internal rectal prolapse associated with rectocele.

Risk factors and clinical characteristics of rectal prolapse in young patients

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is a relatively common condition in children and elderly patients but uncommon in young adults less than 30 years old. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors and characteristics of rectal prolapse in this group of young patients and determine surgical outcome.

METHODS

Adult patients younger than 30 years old with rectal prolapse treated surgically between September 1994 and September 2012 were identified from an IRB-approved database. Demographics, risk factors, associated conditions, clinical characteristics, surgical management and follow-up were recorded.

RESULTS

Forty-four (females 32) patients were identified with a mean age of 23 years old. Eighteen (41%) had chronic psychiatric diseases requiring treatment and these patients experienced significantly more constipation than non-psychiatric patients (83% vs. 50%; P=0.024). Thirteen (30%) patients had previous pelvic surgery. The most common symptom at presentation was a prolapsed rectum in 40 (91%) and hematochezia in 24 (55%). Twenty-four (55%) underwent a laparoscopic rectopexy, 14 (32%) open abdominal repair, and 6 (14%) had perineal surgery. The most common procedure was resection rectopexy in 21 (48%; 7 open; 14 laparoscopic). At a median follow-up of 11 (range 1-165) months, 6 patients (14%) developed a recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication induced constipation in psychiatric patients and possible pelvic floor weakness in patients with previous pelvic surgery may be contributing factors to rectal prolapse in this group of patients.

Open versus laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy: an examination of early postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Abdominal rectopexy is used to treat full thickness rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation syndrome, with good outcomes. Use of a laparoscopic approach may reduce morbidity. The current study assessed short-term operative outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic or open rectopexy.

METHODS

Rectopexy cases were identified from theater logs in two tertiary referral centers. Patient demographics, intra-operative details and early postoperative outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

There were 62 patients included over 10 years, a third of whom underwent laparoscopic rectopexy. Laparoscopy was associated with a longer operative time (195.9 versus 129.6 min, p = 0.003), but this did not affect postoperative outcomes, with no significant differences found for complication rates and length of stay between the two groups. Univariable analysis found no influence of laparoscopic approach on the likelihood of postoperative complications, and no factor achieved significance with multivariable analysis. This study included the first laparoscopic cases performed in the involved institutions, and a "learning curve" existed as seen with a decreasing operative duration per case over time (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectopexy has similar short-term outcomes to open rectopexy.

Comparison of abdominal and perineal procedures for complete rectal prolapse: an analysis of 104 patients

Purpose

Selecting the best surgical approach for treating complete rectal prolapse involves comparing the operative and functional outcomes of the procedures. The aims of this study were to evaluate and compare the operative and functional outcomes of abdominal and perineal surgical procedures for patients with complete rectal prolapse.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients with complete rectal prolapse who had operations at a tertiary referral hospital and a university hospital between March 1990 and May 2011 was conducted. Patients were classified according to the type of operation: abdominal procedure (AP) (n = 64) or perineal procedure (PP) (n = 40). The operative outcomes and functional results were assessed.

Results

The AP group had the younger and more men than the PP group. The AP group had longer operation times than the PP group (165 minutes vs. 70 minutes; P = 0.001) and longer hospital stays (10 days vs. 7 days; P = 0.001), but a lower overall recurrence rate (6.3% vs. 15.0%; P = 0.14). The overall rate of the major complication was similar in the both groups (10.9% vs. 6.8%; P = 0.47). The patients in the AP group complained more frequently of constipation than of incontinence, conversely, in the PP group of incontinence than of constipation.

Conclusion

The two approaches for treating complete rectal prolapse did not differ with regard to postoperative morbidity, but the overall recurrence tended to occur frequently among patients in the PP group. Functional results after each surgical approach need to be considered for the selection of procedure.

Rectal prolapse and intussusception

Rectal prolapse continues to be problematic for both patients and surgeons alike, in part because of increased recurrence rates despite several well-described operations. Patients should be aware that although the prolapse will resolve with operative therapy, functional results may continue to be problematic. This article describes the recommended evaluation, role of adjunctive testing, and outcomes associated with both perineal and abdominal approaches.

Incontinence in full-thickness rectal prolapse: low level of improvement after laparoscopic rectopexy

AIM

The study aimed to quantify incontinence before and after laparoscopic rectopexy in patients suffering from rectal prolapse.

METHOD

Eighty-five patients underwent laparoscopic rectopexy to treat rectal prolapse between 2003 and 2009. Symptomatic and functional data were collected prospectively before and after surgery by self-administered questionnaires including the Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence Score (CCIS) and constipation, gastrointestinal quality of life and urinary incontinence questionnaires. Incontinence was considered to be present when the CCIS remained at ≥ 5 after surgery.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up period of 36 months after surgery, 83% of the patients reported good to excellent results. Continence was improved in 58 (68%), with a significant decrease in the continence score (-3.4 ± 5.8, P = 0.001). However, 50 (58.9%) patients remained incontinent: 47 (55%) reported urge incontinence and 27 (32%) had passive leakage. Incontinence for liquid stool, incontinence for solid stool and the need for protection was seen in 43 (51%), 35 (41%) and 43 (51%) patients. Manometry, defaecography and ultrasonography were not associated with any improvement. In contrast, the patients' average age (60.2 ± 15.8 vs 46.9 ± 15.5 years; P = 0.003), symptom duration before surgery (58.1 ± 70.1 vs 29.5 ± 33.3 months; P = 0.011), preoperative urinary incontinence score (10.7 ± 10.8 vs 4.2 ± 5.7; P = 0.0131) and faecal incontinence score (12.9 ± 4.9 vs 7.1 ± 6; P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in patients suffering from postoperative incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Despite some continence improvement in two-thirds of patients who underwent surgery for rectal prolapse, the level of improvement remained low in more than half of the patients.

Comparative study between Delorme operation with or without postanal repair and levateroplasty in treatment of complete rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is a distressing and socially disabling condition. controversy exists regarding the preferred surgical technique for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

We compared Delorme operation alone or with postanal repair and levatroplasty in treating complete rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Consecutive patients treated for rectal prolapse at our colorectal unit were evaluated for inclusion. Participants were randomly allocated to receive Delorme operation only (GI), or Delorme operation with postanal repair and levatorplasty (GII).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was recurrence rate; secondary outcomes included improvement of constipation, incontinence, operative time, anal manometery and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Eighty-two consecutive patients with rectal prolapse were randomized. There was a significant difference between the two groups with longer operative time in group II. Recurrence rate after one year was (14.28% in GI, and 2.43% in GII, respectively (P = 0.043). Constipation improved in group I & II but there was a significant difference in constipation scores postoperatively between the two groups. There was improvement in continence mechanism in both groups postoperatively but being higher in group II and this produce a significant statistical difference (0.004). Mean satisfaction score was significantly higher in group II than group I. Both groups succeed to produce a significant change in resting and squeeze pressure before & after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Delorme operation seems to be an effective procedure for treating complete rectal prolapse especially if combined with postanal repair and levatorplasty.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01656369.

Rectal prolapse

Optimal management of rectal prolapse requires multiple clinical considerations with respect to treatment options, particularly for surgeons who must counsel and give realistic expectations to rectal prolapse patients. Rectal prolapse outcomes are good with respect to recurrence. Although posterior rectopexy remains most popular in the United States, increasingly surgeons perform ventral rectopexy to repair rectal prolapse. Functional outcomes vary and are fair after rectal prolapse repair. Although incarceration with rectal prolapse is rare, it is potentially life threatening and requires immediate and effective measures to adequately address in the acute setting.

Altemeier's procedure for rectal prolapse: analysis of long-term outcome in 60 patients

AIM

Altemeier's procedure (perineal rectosigmoidectomy) is the operation of choice for rectal prolapse in the elderly. The aims of this prospective observational study were to evaluate its long-term actuarial recurrence risk and the influence of the length of rectosigmoid resection and associated levatorplasty on recurrence rate and continence.

METHOD

The perioperative and long-term data for all patients undergoing Altemeier's procedure since 1992 were analysed with regard to mortality, morbidity, continence, anorectal function and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

Sixty patients [median age 77 years (35-98)] underwent rectosigmoid resection [median length of bowel 14 (6-60) cm] with associated levatorplasty in 21 (35%). Overall mortality and morbidity were 1.6 and 11.6%, respectively. Manometry showed increased anal sphincter basal pressure and maximal squeeze pressure. We observed a decrease in postoperative rectal compliance (P=0.002). Age, gender, prolapse duration before surgery, levatorplasty and length of resection had no statistically significant relationship with recurrence. Continence improved in 62% and was stable over a median follow-up of 48 (1-186) months. Continence was positively related to a short length of bowel resection, but not to decreased rectal compliance. Actuarial recurrence was 14% at 4 years.

CONCLUSION

The long-term recurrence rate after the Altemeier procedure was low and not linked to resection length or to levatorplasty. Improvement in continence was stable over time.

Rectal prolapse in the elderly: trends in surgical management and outcomes from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database

BACKGROUND

Full thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) is managed with an abdominal or perineal operation. Traditionally, the approach has been determined by patient age and comorbidities. Our aim was to determine operative trends and outcomes for repair of FTRP in elderly patients using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database.

STUDY DESIGN

We queried the ACS NSQIP database from 2006 to 2009 for patients with FTRP who were 70 years of age or older. Patients were grouped according to type of surgical repair: laparoscopic (LR), open (OR), or perineal (PR) technique. We reviewed demographics, operative trends of surgical technique, and short-term outcomes for each group.

RESULTS

A total of 816 patients were analyzed; 596 (73%) PR, 130 (16%) OR, and 90 (11%) LR patients. Patients who received OR and LR had lower mean American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores than PR patients (2.6, 2.5, and 2.7, respectively, p < 0.001). The percentage of LR and OR procedures decreased as age increased by decade; the inverse was seen for PR (p < 0.001). The distribution of operative techniques has not changed from year to year. Length of stay was significantly shorter for LR (3.77 days) and PR (3.44 days) patients vs OR patients (6.23 days) (p = 0.01). Complication rates were 2.22%, 8.72%, and 12.31% for LR, PR, and OR, respectively (p = 0.021). Open surgery was the only factor associated with an increased complication rate, with an odds ratio of 6.29 (95% CI 1.38 to 28.6, p < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the appeal of perineal proctectomy in the elderly and debilitated patient, the approach to FTRP is slowly evolving in the era of laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic repair of FTRP in the elderly is associated with improved short-term outcomes when compared with OR and PR.

[Rectal prolapse repair using transanal endoscopic surgery]

Rectal prolapse repair techniques using laparoscopic abdominal surgery are the treatments of choice. However, in patients with increased morbidity, perineal surgical techniques are indicated. Transanal endoscopic surgery is presented as a possible alternative option in groups with increased experience in it.

Perineal rectosigmoidectomy for primary and recurrent rectal prolapse: are the results comparable the second time?

BACKGROUND

The surgical approach to recurrent full-thickness rectal prolapse after perineal rectosigmoidectomy is complicated by recurrent prolapse. The majority of patients who undergo perineal rectosigmoidectomy are elderly with comorbidities. Therefore, redo perineal rectosigmoidectomy is usually selected to avoid postoperative complications.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of redo perineal rectosigmoidectomy for recurrent full-thickness rectal prolapse.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at Cleveland Clinic Florida, from January 2000 to March 2009.

PATIENTS

One hundred thirty-six patients (129 women), mean age 78 (range, 31-98) years, were included in the study; 113 patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse underwent primary perineal rectosigmoidectomy, and 23 patients with recurrent full-thickness rectal prolapse underwent redo perineal rectosigmoidectomy.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perioperative outcomes, recurrence curves, and risk of recurrence were compared between the 2 groups. Age, anterior compartment prolapse, concurrent levatorplasty, and length of bowel resection were analyzed to identify factors potentially influencing recurrence.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable demographics, BMI, and ASA scores. Operative time, blood loss, length of bowel resection, hospital stay, and follow-up (mean, 42.5 months) were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in overall complication rates (redo perineal rectosigmoidectomy 17.4% vs. primary perineal rectosigmoidectomy 16.8%; p = 1.00). The recurrence rate for full-thickness rectal prolapse was significantly higher for redo perineal rectosigmoidectomy than primary perineal rectosigmoidectomy (39% vs. 18%; p = 0.007). None of the factors analyzed was associated with recurrence in either group.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective methodology. In addition, functional outcomes were not evaluated, because many of the patients died during the follow-up period or were unavailable because of advanced age.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo perineal rectosigmoidectomy is as safe and feasible as primary perineal rectosigmoidectomy in elderly and fragile patients with recurrent full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, the re-recurrence rate for full-thickness rectal prolapse is substantially higher for redo perineal rectosigmoidectomy than primary perineal rectosigmoidectomy.

Quality of life after laparoscopic resection rectopexy

PURPOSE

This study evaluated continence, constipation, and quality of life (QoL) after laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Results were compared with existing data after perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS).

METHODS

From May 2003 to February 2008, consecutive patients suffering from full-thickness rectal prolapse undergoing LRR were retrospectively studied. A standardized questionnaire including the Cleveland Clinic Constipation and Incontinence Scores (CCCS and CCIS) as well as general and constipation-related QoL scores (EQ-5D and PAC-QOL) was administered. Results were compared with those after PRS. For statistic analysis, the Wilcoxon test (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) and two-sample Student's t test (CCCS, CCIS, and PAC-QOL) were used for LRR, for the comparison of both procedures Mann-Whitney test (EQ-5D) and two-sample Student's t test (EQ-VAS, CCCS, CCIS, and PAC-QOL).

RESULTS

Eighteen patients, 15 female, aged 58.1 (±20.2) years underwent LRR. Eleven patients completed follow-up. Postoperatively, neither functional outcome nor QoL improved. Two recurrences occurred, morbidity was n = 2, and mortality n = 1. In comparison, patients after PRS benefit from improved constipation, general QoL measures, status of health, and all dimensions of constipation-related QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients after LRR do not benefit from improved general nor constipation-related QoL nor improved functional results compared to PRS.

It's the procedure not the patient: the operative approach is independently associated with an increased risk of complications after rectal prolapse repair

AIM

This study compares 30-day outcomes following rectal prolapse repair, examining potential surgical and patient factors associated with perioperative complications.

METHOD

Using the NSQIP database, patients with rectal prolapse were categorized by surgical approach to repair (perineal or abdominal) and abdominal cases were further subdivided by procedure (resection compared with rectopexy alone). Univariate and multivariate analyses compared major and minor complication rates between the groups.

RESULTS

Of 1275 patients, the perineal group (n=706, 55%) was older, with more comorbidity, than those undergoing an abdominal procedure. There were fewer minor (odd ratio (OR)=0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.60; P=0.0038) and major complications (OR=0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.80; P=0.0038) in the perineal compared with the abdominal cohort. There was a significant increase in major complications amongst patients undergoing a resection compared with rectopexy only (OR=2.15; 95% CI, 1.10-4.41; P=0.0299). There was no difference in major complications between abdominal rectopexy and a perineal approach, but the latter had a lower chance of minor complications (OR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.94; P=0.0287).

CONCLUSION

A perineal approach is safer than an abdominal approach to the treatment of rectal prolapse. Regarding an abdominal operation, rectopexy has fewer major complications than resection.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse using biological mesh: postoperative and short-term functional results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is a novel procedure to correct internal and external rectal prolapse. Several authors have shown that this approach is safe and improves obstructive defaecation symptoms and faecal incontinence, without inducing new-onset constipation, possible after posterior rectopexy. Over the last decade, as for other procedures, biological meshes are used to correct pelvic floor disorders. Literature data are scant. In this study, we present our experience with this procedure using biological mesh.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data on laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for internal rectal prolapse were analysed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation with defaecating proctography and/or pelvic dynamic MRI, full colonoscopy, anal physiology studies and endo-anal ultrasound. End-points were to evaluate surgical complications and functional results of this technique such as changes in bowel function (Wexner Constipation Score and Faecal Incontinence Severity Index) at 3 and 6 months. Analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U test for unpaired data and Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data (two-sided p test).

RESULTS

Thirty-four consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (median age 59, range 25-78 years, mean follow-up was 12 months). Twenty-eight patients (82%) had a constipation score ≥ 5, while 14 (41%) a FISI score ≥ 10. Nine patients (26%) had mixed obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence. One patient required conversion to open (3%). Median length of stay was 2 days. Overall complication rate was 23.5%. Preoperative constipation (median Wexner score 15) and faecal incontinence (median FISI score 12) improved significantly at 3 months (Wexner 5, FISI 5, both p < 0.001). Two patients experienced prolapse persistence or recurrence. No patients had function worsening or complained of sexual dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy using biological mesh for internal rectal prolapse is safe and effective in ameliorating symptoms of obstructed defaecation and faecal incontinence.