Outcome analysis of elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse

Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates-a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In elderly patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse (EFTRP), the exact differences in postoperative recurrence and functional outcomes between laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and perineal stapler resection (PSR) have not yet been investigated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicenter study on 330 elderly patients divided into LVMR group (n = 250) and PSR (n = 80) from April 2012 to April 2019. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery by Wexner incontinence scale, Altomare constipation scale, and patient satisfaction questionnaire. The primary outcomes were incidence and risk factors for EFTRP recurrence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative incontinence, constipation, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

LVMR was associated with fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001), lower prolapse recurrence (p < 0.001), lower Wexner incontinence score (p = 0.03), and lower Altomare's score (p = 0.047). Furthermore, LVMR demonstrated a significantly higher surgery-recurrence interval (p < 0.001), incontinence improvement (p = 0.019), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) than PSR. Three and 13 patients developed new symptoms in LVMR and PSR, respectively. The predictors for prolapse recurrence were LVMR (associated with 93% risk reduction of recurrence, OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.03-0.347, p = 0.001), symptom duration (prolonged duration was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, OR 1.131, 95% CI 1.036-1.236, p = 0.006), and length of prolapse (increased length was associated with a high recurrence risk (OR = 1.407, 95% CI = 1.197-1.655, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.

A comparative study between transanal and transabdominal approaches in treatment of complete rectal prolapse

Formulating clear guidelines for the most reliable treatment methods for complete rectal prolapse appears challenging. The authors designed this study to compare the results according to the approaches for female complete rectal prolapse and to suggest a more effective method. The transanal and abdominal groups showed differences in operating time, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. However, both groups demonstrated improvement in postoperative functional evaluation.

PURPOSE

There is a wide variety of surgical methods to treat rectal prolapse; however, to date, no clear agreement exists regarding the most effective surgical method. This study was designed to compare the results according to the surgical approach for complete rectal prolapse in women.

METHODS

This study was conducted from March 2016 to February 2021 on female patients with rectal prolapse who underwent surgery. First, all patients were classified into mucosal and complete layer groups to confirm the difference in results between the two groups, and only complete layer prolapse patients were divided into transanal and abdominal approaches to compare parameters and functional outcomes in each group.

RESULTS

A total of 180 patients were included, with an average age of 71.7 years and 102 complete prolapses. The complete layer group was found to have more abdominal access, longer operating time, and higher recurrence rates compared to the mucosal layer group. (p<0.001) When targeting only the complete layer patients, there were 65 patients with the transanal and 37 with the abdominal (laparoscopic) approaches. The abdominal approach group had a longer operating time and hospital stay (p<0.001, respectively) and lower recurrence rate than the transanal group (transanal vs. abdominal, 38% vs. 10.8%, p=0.003), while the Wexner constipation and incontinence scores showed improved results in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Although operating time and hospitalization period were shorter in the transanal group, laparoscopic abdominal surgery is a procedure that can reduce the recurrent rate for complete rectal prolapse.

Anatomo-functional outcomes of the laparoscopic Frykman-Goldberg procedure for rectal prolapse in a tertiary referral centre

Rectal prolapse is a common disorder that represents a burden for patients due to the associated symptoms that may include both incontinence and constipation. Currently, a huge variation in techniques exist. The aim of this study was to evaluate the anatomo-functional results of the laparoscopic Frykman-Goldberg procedure (LFGP) for the treatment of both internal (IRP) and complete rectal prolapse (CRP). Between July 2004 and October 2019, 45 patients with IRP and CRP underwent a LFGP. The Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS), Obstructed Defecation Syndrome Score (ODSS) and Vaizey Score (VS) were assessed preoperatively, 3 months before the procedure, 12 months after the procedures and at the final follow-up visit. The patients' mean age was 51.4 ± 17.9 (15-93) years, and the mean follow-up was 9.24 ± 4.57 (1.6-16.3) years. The VS, CCCS and ODSS significantly improved (p = 0.008; p < 0.001; p < 0.001) from median preoperative values of 3, 20 and 18 to 2, 6 and 5, respectively. Furthermore, the improvements in scores during follow-up remained constant and significant over time when considering the two groups separately (time effect for ODSS p < 0.001, for VS p = 0.026, for CCCS p < 0.001) and when the patients were divided by age (< 40, 41-60 and > 60; p < 0.001). The overall complication rate was 8.9% (4/45), and no intraoperative complications or anastomotic leakage occurred. Conversion to the open approach was not necessary in any case. The overall success rate was 97.7%, and only one recurrence in the IRP group occurred after 14 months. LRGP can be considered a safe, effective and long-lasting procedure in young patients with IRP or CRP, a history of ODS and a redundant sigmoid colon.

Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse in the Laparoscopic Era; A Review of the Literature

Rectal prolapse is associated with debilitating symptoms including the discomfort of prolapsing tissue, mucus discharge, hemorrhage, and defecation disorders of fecal incontinence, constipation, or both. The aim of treatment is to eliminate the prolapse, correct associated bowel function and prevent new onset of bowel dysfunction. Historically, abdominal procedures have been indicated for young fit patients, whereas perineal approaches have been preferred in older frail patients with significant comorbidity. Recently, the laparoscopic procedures with their advantages of less pain, early recovery, and lower morbidity have emerged as an effective tool for the treatment of rectal prolapse. This article aimed to review the current evidence base for laparoscopic procedures and perineal procedures, and to compare the results of various techniques. As a result, laparoscopic procedures showed a relatively low recurrence rate than the perineal procedures with comparable complication rates. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy had a small advantage in the improvement of constipation or the prevention of new-onset constipation compared with other laparoscopic procedures. However, the optimal surgical repair has not been clearly demonstrated because of the significant heterogeneity of available studies. An individualized approach is recommended for every patient, considering age, comorbidity, and the underlying anatomical and functional disorders.

Resection Rectopexy is Still an Acceptable Operation for Rectal Prolapse

The aim of this study was to compare resection rectopexy (RR) with ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). This institutional review board–approved retrospective study compared patients with rectal prolapse, who underwent RR or VMR from 2009 to 2016. The primary end point was the comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence rates. Seventy-nine RR and 108 VMR patients qualified. Using propensity score matching, the two groups were not significantly different (P = 0.818). There were no differences regarding gender (female 103 vs 72; P = 0.4) and age (59.3 vs 53.9; P = 0.054). Patients in the VMR group had a greater body mass index (25.5 vs 22.9; P = 0.001) and poorer physical status (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3 57.4% vs 41.8%; P = 0.04). The VMR group had more: robotic approaches (69.4% vs 8.9%; P < 0.001), concomitant urogynecological procedures (63 vs 19; P < 0.001), and longer operative time (269 vs 206 minutes; P < 0.001) but a reduced length of stay (2 vs 5 days; P < 0.001). The median follow-up (16 vs 26 months; P = 0.125) and the median time of recurrence (14 vs 38 months; P = 0.163) were similar. No differences were observed for complications or recurrence (10.2% vs 10.1%; P = 0.43). We failed to identify superiority based on surgical technique.

A novel technique for correction of total rectal prolapse: Endoscopic-assisted percutaneous rectopexy with the aid of the EndoLifter

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Rectal prolapse is common in the elderly, having an incidence of 1% in patients over 65years of age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a new endoluminal procedure for attaching the previously mobilized rectum to the anterior abdominal wall using an endoscopic fixation device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study is a single-arm phasei experimental trial. Under general anesthesia, total rectal prolapse was surgically reproduced in five pigs. Transanal endoscopic reduction of the rectal prolapse was performed. The best site for transillumination of the abdominal wall, suitable for rectopexy, was identified. The EndoLifter was used to approximate the anterior wall of the proximal rectum to the anterior abdominal wall. Two percutaneous rectopexies were performed by puncture with the Loop FixtureII Gastropexy Kit^® at the preset site of transillumination. After the percutaneous rectopexies, rectoscopy and exploratory laparotomy were performed. Finally, the animals were euthanized.

RESULTS

The mean procedure time was 16min (11-21) and the mean length of the mobilized specimen was 4.32cm (range 2.9-5.65cm). A total of 10 fixations were performed with a technical success rate of 100%. There was no evidence of postoperative rectal prolapse in any of the animals. The EndoLifter facilitated the process by allowing the mucosa to be held and manipulated during the repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic-assisted percutaneous rectopexy is a safe and feasible endoluminal procedure for fixation of the rectum to the anterior abdominal wall in experimental animals.

[Transtar™ operation for rectocele and obstructed defecation syndrome]

The Contour® Transtar™ operation represents a further methodological development of conventional transanal stapled rectal resection (STARR) for the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) and/or full thickness rectal prolapse. In contrast to the conventional STARR technique a specially designed single curved stapler is used with which the rectal wall is incised in a circular fashion and anastomosed. This results in a monoblock resection with almost unlimited extent of resection. In multicenter studies the procedure has generally been shown to be effective for treatment of ODS with intussusception and rectocele. In comparison to conventional STARR the resected tissue samples are larger and the functional effectiveness is comparable. Furthermore, data from prospective randomized trials revealed higher effectiveness in long-term follow-up. With reference to full thickness rectal prolapse, feasibility studies have been performed which showed low morbidity but long-term follow-up studies suggest a high recurrence rate of >40 %.

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.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and pelvic floor disorders

Pelvic floor disorders are different dysfunctions of gynaecological, urinary or anorectal organs, which can present as incontinence, outlet-obstruction and organ prolapse or as a combination of these symptoms. Pelvic floor disorders affect a substantial amount of people, predominantly women. Transabdominal procedures play a major role in the treatment of these disorders. With the development of new techniques established open procedures are now increasingly performed laparoscopically. Operation techniques consist of various rectopexies with suture, staples or meshes eventually combined with sigmoid resection. The different approaches need to be measured by their operative and functional outcome and their recurrence rates. Although these operations are performed frequently a comparison and evaluation of the different methods is difficult, as most of the used outcome measures in the available studies have not been standardised and data from randomised studies comparing these outcome measures directly are lacking. Therefore evidence based guidelines do not exist. Currently the laparoscopic approach with ventral mesh rectopexy or resection rectopexy is the two most commonly used techniques. Observational and retrospective studies show good functional results, a low rate of complications and a low recurrence rate. As high quality evidence is missing, an individualized approach is recommend for every patient considering age, individual health status and the underlying morphological and functional disorders.

Modified laparoscopic anterior resection of the rectum for rectal prolapse in elderly patients

AIM: To assess the clinical effects, feasibility and safety of modified laparoscopic anterior resection of the rectum for rectal prolapse in elderly patients.

METHODS: The clinical data for 20 elderly patients suffering from rectal prolapse who underwent modified laparoscopic anterior resection of the rectum (laparoscopic group) and 20 elderly patients who underwent modified anterior resection of the rectum (open group) from 2005 to 2013 were collected. Comparative analysis of the two surgical groups was done.

RESULTS: Surgery was successful in all of the 40 cases. The mean length of the resected specimen was 21.7 cm ± 2.2 cm vs 22.3 cm ± 2.1 cm and showed no significant difference between the two groups. Mean intraoperative blood loss (118.0 mL ± 40.8 mL vs 156.0 mL ± 33.5 mL), time to recovery of intestinal function (2.3 d ± 0.9 d vs 3.9 d ± 0.7 d), mean duration of postoperative hospital stay (6.3 d ± 1.1 d vs 9.9 d ± 1.7 d) and mean operational time (146.0 min ± 22.3 min vs 115.0 min ± 16.5 min) differed significantly between the two groups. There was also a significant difference between the two groups in the rate of complications (15% vs 45%). All the cases were followed for 36.0 mo ± 11.3 mo and the recurrence rate was 10.0% vs 5.0%, showing no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: Modified laparoscopic anterior resection of the rectum for rectal prolapse in elderly patients is safe, effective, and satisfactory, with low recurrence rate and minimal invasiveness. Laparoscopic procedure should be considered first for rectal prolapse in elderly patients.

Clinical outcomes of perineal proctectomy among patients of advanced age

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse occurs primarily in older patients who often have significant comorbidities. With the aging population, increasing numbers of elderly patients are presenting with rectal prolapse. The perineal approach is preferred for these patients because it involves less perioperative risk than an abdominal procedure, but the outcomes of this procedure in elderly patients are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine whether clinical outcomes after perineal proctectomy are similar among elderly patients versus patients of younger age.

DESIGN

This study was a retrospective review.

SETTING

This study was conducted in mixed academic and private practice; the operations were performed at 16 hospitals.

PATIENTS

Patients who had perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse from 1994 to 2012 were grouped according to age: <70 (group A), 70 to 79 (group B), 80 to 89 (group C), and ≥90 years (group D).

INTERVENTIONS

Perineal proctectomy with or without concurrent levatorplasty was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were postoperative complications, recurrence, and survival after perineal proctectomy.

RESULTS

Four hundred patients underwent 518 perineal proctectomies: group A, N = 113; group B, N = 113; group C, N = 208; and group D, N = 84. The immediate and late complication rates were 5.6% and 3.5% and did not vary by age. Recurrence was 22.6% and was significantly different between groups, with the lowest recurrence in group D, 14.3% (p = 0.007). Reoperation after recurrence was less likely in group D. The main type of reoperation was perineal proctectomy (41.5%), but, for group D, recurrence was usually managed nonoperatively (58.3%). Median survival after operation was more than 4 years in the advanced age group.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective data, which did not allow analysis of patients with rectal prolapse who did not undergo surgery, were used in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

When selected appropriately, patients 90 years of age or older have outcomes similar to younger patients; therefore, age alone should not be a contraindication to surgery. In addition, elderly patients have a median survival of more than 4 years after surgery, so the operative risk can be worth the benefit accrued.

Long-term outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients

AIM

Full-thickness rectal prolapse is common in the elderly, but there are no particular practice guidelines for its surgical management. We evaluated retrospectively the perioperative and long-term clinical results and function in elderly and younger patients with complete rectal prolapse after robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy (RALR).

METHOD

Seventy-seven patients who underwent RALR between 2002 and 2010 were divided into Group A (age < 75 years, n = 59) and Group B (age > 75 years, n = 18). Operative time, intra- and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, short-term and long-term outcomes, recurrence rate and degree of satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups regarding operation time, conversion, morbidity or length of hospital stay. At a median follow-up of 51.8 (5-115) months, there was no difference in the improvement of faecal incontinence, recurrence and the degree of satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is safe in patients aged over 75 years and gives similar results to those in patients aged < 75 years.

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) are favored for the treatment for rectal prolapse (RP) in the USA and Europe, respectively. This study aims to compare these two surgical techniques.

METHODS

All patients who underwent LRR because of RP between January 2000 and January 2012 at Cleveland Clinic Florida (Weston, FL, USA) were identified, and all relevant characteristics were entered in a database. This same analysis was also conducted for all patients who underwent LVR in the Meander Medical Center (Amersfoort, the Netherlands) between January 2004 and January 2012. These two cohorts were retrospectively compared with regard to complications, functional results and recurrence.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients (all female, mean age 50.1 years) were included in the LRR cohort at a mean follow-up of 57 (range 2-140; standard deviation (SD) ± 41.2) months. The LVR group consisted of 40 patients (36 females and 4 males) with a mean age of 67.0 years and a mean follow-up of 42 (range 2-82; SD ± 23.8) months. A significant reduction in constipation was observed in both cohorts after surgery: 57 versus 21% after LRR and 55 versus 23% after LVR (both P < 0.05). The incidence of incontinence also significantly decreased in both groups: 15% after LVR (55% before surgery) and 4% after LRR (61 % before surgery). Direct comparison of these two techniques showed a trend to significance (P = 0.09). Significantly, more complications occurred after LRR (n = 9: 1 major, 8 minor) then after LVR (n = 3: 2 major, 1 minor) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both LVR and LRR are effective for the treatment for RP. Although both techniques offer significant improvements in functional symptoms, continence may be better after LRR. However, LRR also had a higher complication rate then did LVR.

Changing approaches to rectal prolapse repair in the elderly

Aim: The abdominal approach to rectal prolapse is associated with lower rates of recurrence but a higher chance of complications and has been traditionally reserved for younger patients. However, longer life expectancy and wider use of laparoscopic techniques necessitates another look at the abdominal approach in older patients.

Methods: This was a retrospective review of data from patients undergoing abdominal repair of rectal prolapse between 2005 and 2011.

Results: Forty-six abdominal repairs (laparoscopic or open suture rectopexy, sigmoidectomy and rectopexy and low anterior resection) were performed during the study period. Twenty-nine repairs (63%) were performed in patients under the age of 70 (average age 51) and 17 (37%) in patients older than 70 (average age 76; range 71–89). Most of the cases performed during the initial 3 years of the study were via laparotomy. However, in the last 4 years, the laparoscopic approach was used in 83% of younger patients and 69% of older patients. Average length of stay was 2.6 days for younger and 3.8 days for older patients. Both groups had similar rates of re-admission: 20% vs 23%. The rate of wound infection was higher in the younger patients (5% vs nil). However, rates of urinary tract infection, two instances (10%) vs four (30%), urinary retention, one instance (5%) vs two (15.4%), ileus, one instance (5%) vs two (15.4%) were higher in the older group.

Conclusion: Wider use of laparoscopy has precipitated a change in the approach to rectal prolapse in older patients. Although associated with a slightly higher rate of post-operative complications, the abdominal approach to rectal prolapse is feasible, safe and effective in patients older than 70 years.

[Transanal procedure for functional bowel diseases]

The transanal operative procedure for the treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) can be secondarily applied in cases of failure or ineffectiveness of conservative treatment. Clinically established transanal procedures are rectocele resection (RR), mucosectomy for internal rectal prolapse according to the Rehn-Delorme procedure (MR) and stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR Contour Transtar). Only few studies have indicated the value of RR and MR in the treatment of obstructive diseases and in general study quality and evidence level are low. There might be an indication in rectocele-associated symptoms, such as incomplete evacuation, straining and digitation. In contrast the STARR procedure has been well characterized by a large number of high quality studies providing an elevated evidence level for the treatment of ODS. Functional results are available with a follow-up of 1 year up to 68 months postoperatively. Response rates of up to 90% were reported whereas recurrence rates were given as a maximum of 18% at 68 months follow-up. In summary the STARR procedure provides good functional results for conservative refractory outlet obstruction with minor morbidity and outcome seems to remain stable in the long-term follow-up.

[Transabdominal procedures for functional bowel diseases]

Incontinence and constipation can occur in cases of pelvic floor dysfunction. Purely morphological changes without severe clinical symptoms are not an indication for surgery. Abdominal operations can be classified into procedures with dorsal (with or without bowel resection and with or without mesh implantation) and procedures with ventral rectopexy (with mesh). With respect to constipation and incontinence suture rectopexy alone is inferior to all other procedures. Dorsal and ventral mesh rectopexy and resection rectopexy are all comparable with respect to improvement of incontinence. Ventral rectopexy without dorsal mobilization and resection rectopexy are superior to mesh rectopexy with respect to constipation. Due to poor evidential status treatment is carried out from a pragmatic viewpoint.

Obstructive defecation syndrome: 19 years of experience with laparoscopic resection rectopexy

BACKGROUND

In obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) combinations of morphologic alterations of the pelvic floor and the colorectum are nearly always evident. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) aims at restoring physiological function. We present the results of 19 years of experience with this procedure in patients with ODS.

METHODS

Between 1993 and 2012, 264 patients underwent LRR for ODS at our department. Perioperative and follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

The female/male ratio was 25.4:1, mean age was 61.3 years (±14.3 years), and mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.2 kg/m(2) (±4.2 kg/m(2)). The pathological conditions most frequently found in combination were a sigmoidocele plus a rectocele (n = 79) and a sigmoidocele plus a rectal prolapse or intussusception (n = 69). The conversion rate was 2.3 % (n = 6). The mortality rate was 0.75 % (n = 2), the rate of complications requiring surgical re-intervention was 4.3 % (n = 11), and the rate of minor complications was 19.8 % (n = 51). Follow-up data were available for 161 patients with a mean follow-up of 58.2 months (±47.1 months). Long-term results showed that 79.5 % of patients (n = 128) reported at least an improvement of symptoms. In cases of a sigmoidocele (n = 63 available for follow-up) or a rectal prolapse II°/III° (n = 72 available for follow-up), the improvement rates were 79.4 % (n = 50) and 81.9 % (n = 59), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LRR is a safe and effective procedure. Our perioperative results and long-term functional outcome strengthen the evidence regarding benefits of LRR in patients with an outlet obstruction. However, careful patient selection is essential.

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.

Is the abdominal repair of rectal prolapse safer than perineal repair in the highest risk patients? An NSQIP analysis

BACKGROUND

Although the perineal approach in the surgical management of rectal prolapse has a higher recurrence, it is the accepted approach for higher-risk patients because of its lower morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine outcomes of abdominal versus perineal approaches to rectal prolapse repair. DESIGN SETTINGS: A retrospective study was performed comparing outcomes of patients undergoing different types of surgical approaches (open abdominal, laparoscopic, perineal) for rectal prolapse.

PATIENTS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Participant User Data Files (2008-2009) were queried for patients undergoing adult, elective procedures for rectal prolapse.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed to look at age, ASA classification, procedure type, and resultant mortality rate.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred sixty-nine patients meeting our criteria were identified. Older patients (age>80) and higher-risk patients (ASA classifications 3 and 4) were significantly associated with the selection of the perineal approach. The overall mortality rate was 0.5%. The mortality rate for all perineal procedures was 0.9% in comparison with 0.13% for all abdominal operations (p = 0.033). The mortality rate for the highest-risk groups (ASA 3 and 4) for perineal procedures was 1.3% in comparison with 0.35% in the abdominal procedure group; the relative risk for mortality was 4 times greater in the perineal procedure group than in the abdominal procedure group.

LIMITATIONS

The retrospective design and standardized outcomes measured use administrative-level data and prevent the assessment of procedure-specific outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital mortality for the surgical repair of rectal prolapse is uncommon. The decision to choose the abdominal approach for the repair of rectal prolapse may not be as prohibitive as previously thought for higher-risk patients. Because of the broad range of functionality within each ASA classification, the operation offered should always be individualized, and patient selection is the most important factor.