Management of recurrent rectal prolapse: surgical approach influences outcome

Recurrence Rates and Risk Factors in the Altemeier Procedure for Rectal Prolapse: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Perineal proctosigmoidectomy (Altemeier) is a surgical procedure that is commonly used for the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, there is a diverse range of recurrence rates after Altemeier procedure repair that has been reported in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To identify primary and subsequent recurrence rates after perineal proctosigmoidectomy and to define potential risk factors for recurrence.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTINGS

Conducted at 6 hospitals affiliated with the Cleveland Clinic.

PATIENTS

The study included patients who were older than 18 years and were treated with the Altemeier procedure for rectal prolapse between 2007 and 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were rates of primary and subsequent recurrences. Secondary outcomes included potential risk factors for recurrence previously mentioned in the literature.

RESULTS

We identified 182 patients, of whom 95.1% were women, with a mean age of 79 years (SD 11.4). Overall, procedures were elective in 92.1% of patients, and 14.3% had previously undergone prolapse repairs (Delorme, Thiersch, abdominal suture rectopexy, and abdominal mesh rectopexy). At a mean follow-up period of 27.5 months (SD 45.7), 37.9% of patients experienced recurrence, with 16.5% of patients having multiple recurrences. A subsequent Altemeier procedure was performed in 72.5% of instances. Other treatments included Delorme, abdominal suture rectopexy, abdominal mesh rectopexy, or conservative management. This study identified connective tissue disorders and time since surgery as significant risk factors for recurrence.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design and varying follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Perineal proctosigmoidectomy is associated with a significant risk of recurrence. The risk of recurrence increased with the presence of a connective tissue disorder and in proportion to the elapsed time since surgery. These discoveries assist health care professionals in counseling and managing patients who undergo perineal proctosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract .

TASAS DE RECURRENCIA Y FACTORES DE RIESGO EN EL PROCEDIMIENTO DE ALTEMEIER PARA EL PROLAPSO RECTAL UN ESTUDIO MULTICNTRICO

ANTECEDENTES:La proctosigmoidectomía perineal (Altemeier) es un procedimiento quirúrgico que se utiliza comúnmente para el tratamiento del prolapso rectal. Sin embargo, existe una amplia gama de tasas de recurrencia después de la reparación con el procedimiento de Altemeier que se han informado en la literatura.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue identificar las tasas de recurrencia primaria y posterior después de la proctosigmoidectomía perineal, así como definir los posibles factores de riesgo de recurrencia.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte.AJUSTES:Realizado en 6 hospitales afiliados a la Clínica Cleveland.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes mayores de 18 años que fueron tratados con procedimiento de Altemeier por prolapso rectal entre 2007 y 2022.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Los resultados primarios fueron las tasas de recurrencias primarias y posteriores. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron factores de riesgo potenciales de recurrencia mencionados anteriormente en la literatura.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron 182 pacientes, de los cuales el 95,1% eran mujeres con una edad media de 79 años (DE 11,4). En general, el 92,1% fueron electivos y el 14,3% se habían sometido previamente a reparaciones de prolapso (Delorme, Thiersch, rectopexia con sutura abdominal y rectopexia con malla abdominal). En un período de seguimiento medio de 27,5 meses (DE 45,7), el 37,9% de los pacientes experimentó recurrencia, y el 16,5% de los pacientes tuvo recurrencias múltiples. En el 72,5% de los casos se realizó un procedimiento de Altemeier posterior. Otros tratamientos incluyeron Delorme, rectopexia con sutura abdominal, rectopexia con malla abdominal o manejo conservador. Este estudio identificó los trastornos del tejido conectivo y el tiempo transcurrido desde la cirugía como factores de riesgo importantes de recurrencia.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo y períodos de seguimiento variables.CONCLUSIÓN:La proctosigmoidectomía perineal se asocia con un riesgo significativo de recurrencia. El riesgo de recurrencia aumentó con la presencia de un trastorno del tejido conectivo y en proporción al tiempo transcurrido desde la cirugía. Estos descubrimientos ayudan a los profesionales de la salud a asesorar y tratar a los pacientes que se someten a proctosigmoidectomía perineal por prolapso rectal. (Traducción-Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

Durable Approaches to Recurrent Rectal Prolapse Repair May Require Avoidance of Index Procedure

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse is associated with unique technical challenges, partially determined by the surgical approach used for the index operation. Success rates are variable, and data to determine the best approach in patients with recurring prolapse are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess current surgical approaches to patients with prior rectal prolapse repairs and to compare short-term outcomes of de novo and redo procedures, including recurrence of rectal prolapse.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospective database.

SETTINGS

The Multicenter Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Prospective Quality Improvement database. De-identified surgeons at more than 25 sites (81% high volume) self-reported patient demographics, prior repairs, symptoms of incontinence and obstructed defecation, and operative details, including history of concomitant repairs and prior prolapse repairs.

PATIENTS

Patients who were offered surgery for full thickness rectal prolapse.

INTERVENTIONS

Incidence and type of repair used for prior rectal prolapse surgery were recorded. Primary and secondary outcomes of index and redo operations were calculated. Patients undergoing rectal prolapse re-repair (redo) were compared with patients undergoing first (de novo) rectal prolapse repair. The incidence of rectal prolapse recurrence in de novo and redo operations was quantified.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome of rectal prolapse recurrence in de novo and redo settings.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine (19.3%) of 461 patients underwent redo rectal prolapse repair. On short-term follow-up, redo patients had prolapse recurrence rates similar to those undergoing de novo repair. However, patients undergoing redo procedures rarely had the same operation as their index procedure.

LIMITATIONS

Self-reported, de-identified data.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that recurrent rectal prolapse surgery is feasible and can offer adequate rates of rectal prolapse durability in the short term but may argue for a change in surgical approach for redo procedures when clinically feasible. See Video Abstract .

LOS ENFOQUES DURADEROS PARA LA REPARACIN DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL RECURRENTE PUEDEN REQUERIR EVITAR EL PROCEDIMIENTO NDICE

ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento quirúrgico del prolapso rectal recurrente se asocia con desafíos técnicos únicos, determinados en parte por el abordaje quirúrgico utilizado para la operación inicial. Las tasas de éxito son variables y faltan datos para determinar el mejor abordaje en pacientes con prolapso recurrente.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los enfoques quirúrgicos actuales para pacientes con reparaciones previas de prolapso rectal y comparar los resultados a corto plazo de los procedimientos de novo y rehacer, incluida la recurrencia del prolapso rectal.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos prospectiva.AJUSTE:Base de datos de mejora prospectiva de la calidad del Consorcio multicéntrico de trastornos del suelo pélvico. Cirujanos no identificados en más de 25 sitios (81% de alto volumen) informaron datos demográficos de los pacientes, reparaciones previas, síntomas de incontinencia y defecación obstruida y detalles operativos, incluido el historial de reparaciones concomitantes y reparaciones previas de prolapso.INTERVENCIONES:Se registro la incidencia y el tipo de reparación utilizada para la cirugía de prolapso rectal previa. Se calcularon los resultados primarios y secundarios de las operaciones de índice y reoperacion. Se compararon los pacientes sometidos a una nueva reparación (reoperacion) de prolapso rectal con pacientes sometidos a una primera reparación (de novo) de prolapso rectal. Se cuantificó la incidencia de recurrencia del prolapso rectal en operaciones de novo y rehacer.RESULTADOS:El resultado primario de recurrencia del prolapso rectal en entornos de novo y redo. Ochenta y nueve (19,3%) de 461 pacientes se sometieron a una nueva reparación del prolapso rectal. En el seguimiento a corto plazo, los pacientes reoperados tuvieron tasas de recurrencia de prolapso similares a los de los sometidos a reparación de novo. Sin embargo, los pacientes sometidos a procedimientos de rehacer rara vez tuvieron la misma operación que su procedimiento índice.LIMITACIONES:Datos no identificados y autoinformados.CONCLUSIONES/DISCUSIÓN:Nuestros resultados sugieren que la cirugía de prolapso rectal recurrente es factible y puede ofrecer tasas adecuadas de durabilidad del prolapso rectal en el corto plazo, pero puede abogar por un cambio en el enfoque quirúrgico para rehacer los procedimientos cuando sea clínicamente factible. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The contemporary literature provides conflicting evidence regarding the precedence of laparoscopic mesh rectopexy over laparoscopic suture rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of mesh and suture rectopexy to improve the surgical management of complete rectal prolapse. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to extract studies based on mesh versus suture rectopexy and published from 2001 to 2023. The articles of interest were obtained from PubMed Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Journal Storage (JSTOR), Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes included rectal prolapse recurrence, constipation improvement, and operative time. The secondary endpoints included the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay duration, mortality, overall postoperative complications, and surgical site infection. A statistically significant low recurrence of rectal prolapse (odds ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.80; p=0.009) and longer mean operative duration (mean difference: 27.05, 95% CI 18.86-35.24; p<0.00001) were observed in patients with mesh rectopexy versus suture rectopexy. Both study groups, however, had no significant differences in constipation improvement and all secondary endpoints (all p>0.05). The laparoscopic mesh rectopexy was associated with a low postoperative rectal prolapse recurrence and a longer operative duration compared to laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Prospective randomized controlled trials should further evaluate mesh and suture rectopexy approaches for postoperative outcomes to inform the surgical management of complete rectal prolapse.

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.

The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse

Objective

There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of rectal prolapse.

Design

A 23-question survey was distributed to the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Pelvic Floor Society. Questions pertained to surgeon and practice demographics, preoperative evaluation, procedural preferences, and educational needs.

Setting

Electronic survey distributed to colorectal surgeons of diverse practice settings.

Participants

249 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey, 65% of which were male. There was wide variability in age, years in practice, and practice setting.

Main outcome measures

Responses to questions regarding preoperative workup preferences and clinical scenarios.

Results

In preoperative evaluation, 19% would perform anorectal physiology testing and 70% would evaluate for concomitant pelvic organ prolapse. In a healthy patient, 90% would perform a minimally invasive abdominal approach, including ventral rectopexy (56%), suture rectopexy (31%), mesh rectopexy (6%) and resection rectopexy (5%). In terms of ventral rectopexy, surgeons in the Americas preferred a synthetic mesh (61.9% vs 38.1%, p=0.59) whereas surgeons from Australasia preferred biologic grafts (75% vs 25%, p<0.01). In an older patient with comorbidities 81% would perform a perineal approach. Procedure preference (Delormes vs Altmeier) varied according to location (Australasia, 85.9% vs 14.1%; Europe, 75.3% vs 24.7%; Americas, 14.1% vs 85.9%). Most participants were interested in education regarding surgical approaches, however there is wide variability in preferred methods.

Conclusion

There is significant variability in the preoperative evaluation and surgery performed for rectal prolapse. Given the lack of consensus, it is not surprising that most surgeons desire further education on the topic.

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.

Comparison of abdominal and perineal approach for recurrent rectal prolapse

Purpose

Rectal prolapse is a benign disease in which the rectum protrudes below the anus. Although many studies have been reported on the treatment of primary rectal prolapse for many years, there is a lack of treatment or clinical research results on recurrent rectal prolapse. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of surgical approaches for recurrent rectal prolapse.

Methods

We studied patients who underwent surgical treatment for recurrent rectal prolapse disease from March 2016 to February 2021. We analyzed the previous operation methods in patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, as well as the operation time, complication rate, hospital stay, and re-recurrence rates in the perineal and abdominal approach groups.

Results

Out of a total of 239 patients, 41 patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were retrospectively enrolled. Recurrent rectal prolapses were surgically treated either by the perineal approach (n = 25, 61.0%) or by the abdominal approach (n = 16, 39.0%). The operation times were significantly longer in the abdominal approach than in the perineal approach (98.44 minutes vs. 58.00 minutes, P = 0.001). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the abdominal approach than in the perineal approach (9.19 days vs. 6.00 days, P = 0.012). Re-recurrence rate after repeat repair was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.777).

Conclusion

Although the perineal approach shortened the operation time and hospital stay, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative complications and re-recurrence rate. Both approaches can be good surgical options for the treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse.

Clinical outcomes of surgical management for recurrent rectal prolapse: a multicenter retrospective study

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

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).

Laparoscopic approach to recurrence following multiple surgeries for external rectal prolapse: a case report

Introduction

The optimal procedure for recurrent external rectal prolapse remains unclear, particularly in laparoscopic approach. In addition, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is sometimes concomitant with rectal prolapse. We present a case who underwent laparoscopic procedure for the recurrence of full-thickness external rectal prolapse coexisting POP.

Case presentation

An 81-year-old parous female had a 10-cm full-thickness external rectal prolapse following the two operations: the first was perineal recto-sigmoidectomy and the second was laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. Imaging study revealed that the recurrent rectal prolapse was concomitant with both cystocele and exposed vagina, what we call POP. We planned and successfully performed laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) using self-cut meshes without any perioperative complication.

Conclusion

This is the first report of LVMR and LSC for recurrent rectal prolapse with POP following the perineal recto-sigmoidectomy and laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. Even for recurrent rectal prolapse with POP, our experience suggests that LVMR and LSC could be utilized.

Rectal Prolapse Repair with Abdominal Fixation Under Sedation and Local or Epidural Anesthesia: Prospective Pilot Study in 10 Elderly Subjects

Background: Rectal prolapse (RP) is primarily a disease of the elderly, where treatment may be associated with significant postoperative morbidity including that related to anesthesia. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a novel abdominal approach to RP repair under sedation and local anesthesia and to assess short- and long-term clinical outcomes in elderly patients (>70 years). Design Settings: This is a prospective pilot study with 10 patients using a novel RP repair. The anesthesia type was local or epidural with sedation. Follow-up was done at 30 days, 12, and 24 months. Patients: Patients were men and women >70 years of age with RP. Main Outcome Measures: (1) Feasibility: successful completion of RP repair using the novel abdominal approach with laparoscopic assistance. (2) Safety: safety was measured by the incidence of the intraoperative complications (bowel perforation, organ injury, and bleeding requiring blood transfusion). (3) Sedation and local anesthesia feasibility: surgery was safely completed without patient intubation. Results: Ten female patients >70 years of age underwent RP repair using the novel abdominal approach. General anesthesia was not required in any of the 10 patients. Two patients recurred within 6 months. One of the patients with recurrence of RP subsequently underwent laparoscopic rectopexy, and the other was minimal and required no further treatment. One mortality occurred at 3 months unrelated to the procedure. No other anesthetic or surgical intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed. Limitations: This is a single-institution pilot study. Conclusions: Abdominal RP repair under sedation and regional anesthesia appears feasible and safe in elderly patients and may, in the future, provide an effective alternative to current treatment options for RP, avoiding general anesthesia. ClinicalTrial.gov registration number: NCT01980043.

Perineal Rectosigmoidectomy Revisited

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of perineal rectosigmoidectomy.

Background

Multiple surgical options are available for rectal prolapse perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier procedure) is the procedure of choice in elderly patients and those with multiple comorbidities.

Methods

Retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing perineal rectosigmoidectomy from 1998 to 2008.

Results

Of 128 patients, 125 (98%) were women; with mean age 74 years. Mean operating time was 76 minutes. Hemostasis was achieved using ultrasonic scalpel or clamp and tie technique in equal numbers. Ultrasonic scalpel use resulted in shorter operative times (57.9 versus 94.7 minutes, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001,) and estimated blood loss (18.8 versus 73 mL, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001) compared to clamp-tie technique. Recurrence was seen in 23 (18%) patients. Recurrence was more after a handsewn anastomosis compared to a stapled anastomosis. Complications occurred in 3 patients (2%: 1 experienced major bleeding, 1 experienced perineal abscess, and 1 experienced postoperative ileus).

Conclusions

Perineal rectosigmoidectomy is associated with low morbidity and mortality. In addition, the minimal discomfort to patient, short length of stay and improvement in quality of life makes this a suitable operation for the elderly.

Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse: A 10-Year Experience at a Single Institution

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Surgical decision-making for rectal prolapse: one size does not fit all

BACKGROUND

Surgery remains the only known treatment option for rectal prolapse. Although over 100 abdominal and perineal procedures are available, there is no consensus as to which intervention is best suited for an individual. This retrospective cohort study describes the patient- and disease-related factors involved in making surgical recommendations around rectal prolapse in a single surgeon experience.

METHODS

91 consecutive patients ≥18 years old diagnosed with external and/or high-grade internal rectal prolapse were assessed and were prospectively entered into an IRB approved registry. Information on patient symptoms, comorbidities, exam findings, surgeon judgment, and patient preference was collected. Treatment recommendations (abdominal, perineal, or no operation) were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

Surgical intervention was recommended to 93% of patients. Of those, 66% were recommended robotic abdominal procedures: 75%, robotic ventral mesh rectopexies; 16%, resection rectopexies; and 9%, suture rectopexies. On univariate analysis, patients with older age, higher ASA scores, presence of cardiopulmonary morbidity, pain as a primary rectal prolapse symptom, rectal prolapse always descended, and surgeon concern for frailty and general anesthesia were associated with recommendations for perineal operations (p < 0.05 for all). However, on multivariate analysis, only age and concern over prolonged anesthesia remained correlated with a recommendation for perineal surgery. Of patients >80 years of age, 15% were recommended an abdominal approach.

CONCLUSIONS

With multiple options available for the treatment of rectal prolapse, treatment recommendations remain surgeon-dependent and may be influenced by many factors. In our practice, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was the most commonly recommended operation and was offered to carefully selected patients of advanced age. Although robotic surgery and ventral mesh rectopexy may not be accessible to all patients and surgeons, this represents a single surgeon's practice bias. This study reinforces the importance of perineal procedures for higher-risk individuals.

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.

Should we offer ventral rectopexy to patients with recurrent external rectal prolapse?

BACKGROUND

For patients with rectal prolapse undergoing Ventral Rectopexy (VR), the impact of prior prolapse surgery on prolapse recurrence is not well described.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare recurrence rates after VR in patients undergoing primary and repeat rectal prolapse repairs.

DESIGN

This study is a prospective cohort study.

METHODS

IRB-approved prospective data registry of consecutive patients undergoing VR for full-thickness external rectal prolapse between 2009 and 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rectal prolapse recurrence was defined as either external prolapse through the anal sphincters or symptomatic rectal mucosa prolapse warranting additional surgery. Preoperative and postoperative morbidity and functional outcomes were analyzed. Actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 108 VRs were performed during the study period. Seventy-two were primary and 36 repeat repairs. Seven cases were open, 23 laparoscopic, and 78 robotic. Six cases were converted from laparoscopic/robotic to open. In 63 patients, VR was combined with gynecological procedures. There were no statistical differences between primary or recurrent prolapse for the following: demographics, operative time, concomitant gynecologic procedures, complications, blood loss, and graft material type. Length of stay was longer in patients with a history of prior prolapse surgery (p = 0.01). Prolapse recurrence rates for primary repairs were reported at 1.4, 6.9, and 9.7% and for recurrent prolapse procedures 13.9, 25, and 25% at 1, 3, and 5 years (p = 0.13). Mean length of follow-up was similar between groups. Time to recurrence was significantly shorter in patients undergoing repeat prolapse surgery 8.8 vs 30.7 months (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

VR is a better option for patients undergoing primary rectal prolapse repair.

Bio-Thiersch as an Adjunct to Perineal Proctectomy Reduces Rates of Recurrent Rectal Prolapse

BACKGROUND

The rates of recurrent prolapse after perineal proctectomy vary widely in the literature, with incidences ranging between 0% and 50%. The Thiersch procedure, first described in 1891 for the treatment of rectal prolapse, involves encircling the anus with a foreign material with the goal of confining the prolapsing rectum above the anus. The Bio-Thiersch procedure uses biological mesh for anal encirclement and can be used as an adjunct to perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse to reduce recurrence.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the Bio-Thiersch procedure as an adjunct to perineal proctectomy and its impact on recurrence compared with perineal proctectomy alone.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing perineal proctectomy with and without Bio-Thiersch was performed.

SETTINGS

Procedures took place in the Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery at a tertiary academic teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients who had undergone perineal proctectomy and those who received perineal proctectomy with Bio-Thiersch were evaluated and compared.

INTERVENTIONS

All of the patients with rectal prolapse received perineal proctectomy with levatorplasty, and a proportion of those patients had a Bio-Thiersch placed as an adjunct.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The incidence of recurrent rectal prolapse after perineal proctectomy alone or perineal proctectomy with Bio-Thiersch was documented.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients underwent perineal proctectomy (8 had a previous prolapse procedure), and 25 patients underwent perineal proctectomy with Bio-Thiersch (12 had a previous prolapse procedure). Patients who received perineal proctectomy with Bio-Thiersch had a lower rate of recurrent rectal prolapse (p < 0.05) despite a higher proportion of them having had a previous prolapse procedure (p < 0.01). Perineal proctectomy with Bio-Thiersch had a lower recurrence over time versus perineal proctectomy alone (p < 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by nature of being a retrospective review.

CONCLUSIONS

Bio-Thiersch as an adjunct to perineal proctectomy may reduce the risk for recurrent rectal prolapse and can be particularly effective in patients with a history of previous failed prolapse procedures.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Altemeier's Procedure for Recurrent Strangulated Rectal Prolapse: A Case Report

Patient: Female, 39

Final Diagnosis: Recurrent strangulated rectal prolapse

Symptoms: Chronic constipation • painful rectal mass • irreducible rectal prolapse

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: Operation

Specialty: Surgery

Optimizing Treatment for Rectal Prolapse

Rectal prolapse is associated with debilitating symptoms and leads to both functional impairment and anatomic distortion. Symptoms include rectal bulge, mucous drainage, bleeding, incontinence, constipation, tenesmus, as well as discomfort, pressure, and pain. The only cure is surgical. The optimal surgical repair is not yet defined though laparoscopic rectopexy with mesh is emerging as a more durable approach. The chosen approach should be individually tailored, taking into account factors such as presence of pelvic floor defects and coexistence of vaginal prolapse, severe constipation, surgical fitness, and whether the patient has had a previous prolapse procedure. Consideration of a multidisciplinary approach is critical in patients with concomitant vaginal prolapse. Surgeons must weigh their familiarity with each approach and should have in their armamentarium both perineal and abdominal approaches. Previous barriers to abdominal procedures, such as age and comorbidities, are waning as minimally invasive approaches have gained acceptance. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is one such approach offering relatively low morbidity, low recurrence rates, and good functional improvement. However, proficiency with this procedure may require advanced training. Robotic rectopexy is another burgeoning approach which facilitates suturing in the pelvis. Successful rectal prolapse surgeries improve function and have low recurrence rates, though it is important to note that correcting the prolapse does not assure functional improvement.

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.

A systematic review of the literature on the surgical management of recurrent rectal prolapse

AIM

There are no available guidelines to support surgical decision-making in recurrent rectal prolapse. This systematic review evaluated the results of abdominal or perineal surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse, with the aim of developing an evidence-based treatment algorithm.

METHOD

PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched for all clinical studies involving patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse between 1950 and 2014. The primary outcome measure was the recurrence rate after abdominal or perineal surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. Secondary outcomes included morbidity, mortality and quality of life data where available.

RESULTS

There were no randomized controlled studies comparing the success rates of abdominal or perineal surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. Most studies were heterogeneous, of low quality (level IV) and involved small numbers of patients. The follow-up of 144 patients included in the studies undergoing perineal surgery ranged from 8.8 to 81 months, with recurrence rates varying from 0% to 50%. Morbidity ranged from 0% to 17% with no mortality reported. Limited data on quality of life following the Altemeier procedure were available. The follow-up for 158 patients included in the studies who underwent abdominal surgery ranged from 0 to 23 years, during which recurrence rates varied from 0% to 15%. Morbidity rates ranged from 0% to 32% with 4% mortality. No quality of life data were available for patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review was unable to develop a treatment algorithm for recurrent rectal prolapse due to the variety of surgical techniques described and the low level of evidence within heterogeneous studies. Larger high-quality studies are necessary to guide practice in this difficult area.

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.

Rectopexy for paediatric rectal prolapse: good outcomes but not without postoperative problems

PURPOSE

Rectopexy is a simple treatment of persisting complete rectal prolapse (RP) or related functional disorders in children. The results of rectopexy have been encouraging with few complications. We describe the postoperative complications and outcome of rectopexy in our institution from 2002 to 2013.

METHODS

Ethical committee accepted the study. Hospital records of 27 successive patients (16 males), median age 7.2 (range 2.8-17) years, who underwent rectopexy (25 laparoscopic, 2 open) were reviewed. Indication for rectopexy included RP (n = 24), solitary rectal ulcer with enterocele (n = 2) and rectocele (n = 1). Nine patients (39 %) were healthy. In the remaining 14 patients, RP was secondary to anorectal malformation (n = 2), bladder exstrophy (n = 1), sacrococcygeal teratoma (n = 1) and myelomeningocele (n = 1) or associated with mental retardation (n = 8) and Asperger's syndrome (n = 1). Five (18 %) patients had constipation. Unexpected postoperative events and complications were rated by Clavien-Dindo classification (Grades I-V).

RESULTS

Seventeen (61 %) patients had postoperative complications (Grade I n = 5, II n = 2 and III n = 7). Readmission was required in 11 (41 %) and reoperation, endoscopy or other surgical procedure in 9 (33 %) patients. Complications included severe faecal obstruction (n = 2), constipation (n = 3), faecal soiling (n = 1) urinary retention (n = 2), enuresis (n = 1), infection (n = 2), residual mucosal prolapse (n = 5), discomfort at defecation (n = 1) and recurrent RP (n = 2). Reoperations included sigmoid resection with re-rectopexy (n = 1), resection of mucosal prolapse (n = 1), suprapubic urinary catheter (n = 2), evacuation of faecal impaction (n = 2), colonoscopy (n = 3), appendicostomy for antegrade continence enema (n = 1). Mental retardation or behavioural disorder increased the risk of postoperative faecal obstruction and constipation RR = 84 (95 % CI 4.3-1600), p = 0.0035. After median follow-up of 4.1 (range 0.6-11) years RP or related condition was cured in 26 patients. Constipation and faecal soiling require management in a total of seven patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term results of rectopexy were good. Postoperative complications from mild to moderate grade were unexpectedly frequent. Preoperative neurobehavioural disorder and constipation increase the risk of postoperative problems and should be mentioned in patient counselling.

Laparoscopic implementation of the Altemeier procedure for recurrent rectal prolapse. Technical note

INTRODUCTION

Many surgical options exist to treat rectal prolapse with different indications, feasibility and results in urgent and complicated cases. These include perineal or abdominal approaches including rectopexy with or without resection. Perineal approaches have reduced surgical invasivity and hospital stay if compared to transabdominal approaches by open surgery or laparoscopy. Up to now there was still a clear dividing line for surgical treatment between the perineal approach, used more for complicated emergency case while the transabdominal open, or laparoscopic approach more common in elective surgery, but more complex to perform.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 37 year old female patient affected by psychiatric disease presented with an unreducible second recurrence of a complicated rectal prolapse. The patient was treated with a third Altemeier procedure but now performed under laparoscopic control. The patient recovered promptly without any complication or recurrence up to the 24 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report describing the combined laparoscopic-perineal approach for the treatment of a complicated recurrence of rectal prolapse. The technical feasibility, the rapidity, the optimal outcome and the rationale behind this option all suggest that this laparoscopic assistance certainly allows an implementation of the effectiveness, safety and results of an established effective perineal approach.

CONCLUSION

This combined approach has the advantage of maintaining the simplicity and rapidity of conventional perineal surgery, adding the advantages of abdominal control and avoiding the risks, the invasivity, and the longer duration of more complex laparoscopic procedures.

Sacrocolpopexy with rectopexy for pelvic floor prolapse improves bowel function and quality of life

BACKGROUND

Sacrocolpopexy with rectopexy is advocated for combined rectal and vaginal prolapse, but limited outcome data have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the indications and outcomes of sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy by comparing pre- and postoperative function and quality of life.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed of all patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy at our institution from 2004 to 2011.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOME MEASURES

Preoperatively, all patients underwent physiology testing and completed 4 validated questionnaires assessing bowel symptom severity and associated quality of life. Patients completed the same questionnaires in 2012.

RESULTS

A total of 110 women (median age, 55 years; range, 28-88) underwent a sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy, 33 with concomitant hysterectomy. All patients had rectal prolapse (n = 96) or rectal intussusception (n = 14), and each also had either enterocele (n = 86) or vaginal prolapse (n = 48). Rectal prolapse with enterocele was the most common presentation (n = 75). Previous surgery included rectal prolapse repair (21%) and hysterectomy (57%). Complications included presacral bleeding (n = 2), ureteral injury (n = 2), wound infection (n = 8), and pulmonary embolism (n = 2). There were no mortalities. Fifty-two patients completed the follow-up questionnaires, with a median follow-up of 29 (range, 4-90) months, and preoperative surveys were available in 30 of these patients. Preoperatively, 93% reported constipation; 82% reported resolution or improvement postoperatively. Constipation severity, measured with the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptom Questionnaire, demonstrated improvement (1.86-1.17; p < 0.001). Fecal incontinence severity scores (Fecal Incontinence Severity Index) improved (39-24; p < 0.01), and 82% of incontinent patients reported cure or improvement. Quality-of-life scores also improved significantly. No patient developed recurrent rectal prolapse.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective review, and the response rate to questionnaires was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy for combined middle and posterior compartment prolapse is a safe procedure, with low risk for recurrence, and improves bowel function and quality of life in most patients.

Laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse to reduce surgical-site infections and length of stay

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is commonly seen in patients with significant co-morbidities. Multiple approaches have been described, including the use of laparoscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic approaches for repair of rectal prolapse are associated with less short-term morbidity than open approaches.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients who underwent laparoscopic or open rectopexy (R) or sigmoid resection and rectopexy (SR + R) between 2005 and 2008. Co-morbidities analyzed included diabetes, body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, cardiac (history of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, previous percutaneous cardiac intervention or surgery), and neurologic disorder (history of transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident). Postoperative complications analyzed included surgical-site infections (SSIs), pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolus, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis. The χ (2) or t test/ANOVA were used to assess significance for categoric and continuous variables, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for morbidity after rectal prolapse repair.

RESULTS

Altogether, 685 patients underwent surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. Most patients underwent open SR + R (open: 247 SR + R, 193 R; laparoscopic: 161 SR + R, 84 R). All patients had similar co-morbidity profiles. Patients undergoing laparoscopic R were significantly older (mean age 61.4 years) than those in the other three groups (p = 0.04). Operating time ranged from 128 min (open R) to 185 min (laparoscopic SR + R; p < 0.001). Open SR + R and open R were associated with significantly more morbidity than laparoscopic SR + R and R [odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.83, p = 0.01]. Comparing all four procedures, there was a trend to decreased overall morbidity with laparoscopic R, but without statistical significance (OR 0.31, 95 % CI 0.07-1.40, p = 0.13). Length of hospital stay (LOS) and SSI rates were significantly lower with laparoscopic R than with the other three procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo laparoscopic rectopexy have a shorter LOS and lower SSI rate than patients who undergo other abdominal procedures for repair of rectal prolapse. Further study is necessary to determine the long-term outcomes from laparoscopic rectopexy, but in high-risk patients the laparoscopic approach can decrease perioperative risk.

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.

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

PURPOSE

For treatment of rectal prolapse, abdominal approaches are generally offered to younger patients, whereas perineal, less invasive procedures are considered more beneficial in the elderly. The aim of this study was to analyze whether laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) is suitable for older patients.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Patients who received LRR for rectal prolapse were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. Perioperative and long-term outcome were compared between patients <75 years old (group A) and ≥75 years old (group B).

RESULTS

Of 154 patients, 111 were in group A and 43 in group B. There was one conversion that occurred in group B. Overall mortality rate was 1.3% (n = 2). Both patients were in group B (group B, 4.7%; p = 0.079). Differences in major and minor complications between the groups were not significant. Rates of improvement for incontinence were 62.7% (group A) and 66.7% (group B; p = 0.716); for constipation, the rates were 78.9% (group A) and 73.3% (group B; p = 0.832). All recurrences occurred in group A (n = 10; overall, 10.3%; group A, 13%). After exclusion of patients who had previously received perineal prolapse surgery, recurrence rate was 3.3% overall (group A, 4.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the benefits of LRR for rectal prolapse in elderly patients. Age per se is not a contraindication for LRR. Elderly patients encounter complications slightly more frequently (although not statistically significant) than younger patients. Therefore, a very careful patient selection in the elderly is of paramount importance. However, the long-term outcome does not seem to differ between younger and elderly patients.

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.

How to do it--laparoscopic resection rectopexy

INTRODUCTION

A variety of surgical strategies have been suggested and many surgical techniques, both abdominal and perineal, have been introduced for treatment of rectal prolapse. All these techniques and approaches are based on the attempt to restore the normal anatomy and physiologic function.

METHODS

In 1992, Berman et al. published the first laparoscopically performed rectopexy. Meanwhile, many different minimally invasive procedures have been described. Throughout the past century, more than 100 different surgical techniques have been introduced to treat patients with rectal prolapse. Unfortunately, there is still lack of one generally accepted standard technique for the surgical treatment of rectal prolapse.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Our current data strongly supports laparoscopic resection rectopexy to be a safe, fast, and very effective procedure to improve function in patients with rectal prolapse. More evaluations of long-term outcome are needed that focus on each particular laparoscopic procedure to adequately compare different techniques. The indication to perform a laparoscopic resection rectopexy in patients with a previous perineal procedure and a recurrent prolapse should be stated critically because these patients seem to have a high risk to develop yet another recurrence.

Rectal prolapse

Despite the innovation of more than 100 surgical procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse, no one procedure is best and applicable to all patients. Traditionally, procedures have been divided into abdominal and perineal approaches. The application of the laparoscopic approach to colon and rectal disease has allowed an additional less invasive method of therapy to treat rectal prolapse successfully. In comparison with conventional approaches, laparoscopy has achieved similar functional results and recurrence rates while reducing postoperative pain and hospital length of stay.

Laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-center study during 16 years

BACKGROUND

Many different techniques to treat rectal prolapse have been introduced. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy has been shown to entail benefits regarding both perioperative results and short-term outcome, whereas data for long-term outcome are scarce.

METHODS

Between 1993 and 2008, all laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse II° or III° were selected from a prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. We analyzed demographic, perioperative, and follow-up results. We defined two periods (1993-2000 and 2001-2008) for comparison of data. Long-term follow-up was obtained by sending questionnaires to all patients. Evaluation included constipation, incontinence, and recurrence of prolapse.

RESULTS

Between January 1993 and November 2008, we performed 152 laparoscopic resection rectopexies for rectal prolapse. Median age was 64.1 years (± 14.6). Conversion rate was 0.7% (1), mean operation time was 204 (± 65.3) min, and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first (P < 0.0001). Mortality was 0.7% (n = 1). Complication rates were 4% (n = 6; major) and 19.2% (n = 29; minor), respectively. Mean length of hospital stay was 11.3 (± 6.4) days and was significantly shorter in the second period compared with the first period (P < 0.0001). Mean time of follow-up was 47.7 (± 41.6) months. Improvement or complete elimination of constipation was stated by 81.3% (65), and improvement or elimination of incontinence was stated by 67.3% (72). Overall recurrence rate was 11.1% (n = 10) with a rate of 5.6% (n = 5) for a 5-year period. Of those patients with previous perineal surgery for rectal prolapse, 53.8% (7/13) experienced recurrent prolapse after laparoscopic resection rectopexy in contrast to 3.9% (3/77) of patients without previous perineal prolapse surgery (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the benefits of laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse regarding both perioperative results and long-term functional outcome. Preceding perineal or open abdominal operations have an impact on recurrence after laparoscopic resection rectopexy.

Tailored surgery for internal and external rectal prolapse: functional results of 268 patients operated upon by a single surgeon over a 21-year period*

OBJECTIVE

Many procedures are used to treat internal (IRP) and external rectal prolapse (ERP). We report the outcome of surgery tailored in accordance with an evolving Unit algorithm over a 21-year period.

METHOD

Two hundred and sixty-eight patients (151 IRP and 117 ERP) are reported. Perineal procedures (Delorme's mucosectomy, Altemeier's perineal rectosigmoidectomy) were used in frail elderly patients with ERP with abdominal sacrorectopexy or the Frykman-Goldberg procedure in fit patients. In IRP, prolapsectomy was most common with anterior hemi-Delorme's procedures for rectocele and levatorplasty for coincident faecal incontinence. Clinical and functional outcome was assessed over a median of 61 months (range 4-184 months).

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 0.4%. For ERP, a perineal procedure was carried out in 75 (61.4%) cases with a 7.2% complication rate, postoperative incontinence in 20 (26.7%), constipation in four (5.3%) and recurrence in 12 (16%). For 42 abdominal procedures, the complication rate was 5% with incontinence in 7.1%, constipation in eight (19%) and recurrence in five (11.9%). A perineal operation was used in 89.4% of patients with IRP with incontinence in 10.6%, persistent constipation in 48 (52.7%) and recurrence in 25 (27.5%). The overall incontinence rate was 11% following abdominal and 24% following perineal procedures (P < 0.05). Recurrence of ERP was significantly higher following a perineal operation (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Tailored surgery for ERP achieves satisfactory results in terms of recurrence and functional outcome. For patients with IRP, perineal procedures are associated with a high incidence of recurrence and residual evacuatory difficulty.

Long-term outcome of Altemeier's procedure for rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Altemeier's procedure is infrequently applied in European countries and because of the small number of patients treated in each center, its long-term reliability is uncertain.

METHODS

Medical records of 93 patients (median age, 77 years) undergoing perineal rectosigmoidectomy associated with levatorplasty in 72 patients (78 percent) were reviewed; 65 patients (70 percent) suffered from major fecal incontinence.

RESULTS

There was no postoperative mortality. Eight (8.6 percent) major complications were observed (3 pelvic hematomas, 1 anastomotic dehiscence, 1 sigmoid perforation, 1 pararectal abscess, and 2 late anal strictures), and 13 (14 percent) minor complications. At a mean follow-up of 41 (range, 12-112) months the complete recurrence rate was 18 percent (17 patients); these patients were treated with a repeat Altemeier's procedure (6 patients), Delorme's operation (1 patient), Wells' rectopexy (1 patient), postanal repair (1 patient), anal bulking agents (2 patients), and sacral nerve stimulation (2 patients). Anal manometry significantly improved postoperatively. Incontinence improved postoperatively in 30 cases (28 percent), deteriorated in 2 patients, while 4 patients developed minor incontinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Perineal rectosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse is a relatively safe and effective treatment, in particular, for frail, older patients, with a low postoperative morbidity, but the recurrence rate is not negligible and restoration of continence is unpredictable.

A new technique for suture rectopexy without resection for rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

We surmised that if rectopexy was performed without dissection of the lateral rectal stalks in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and normal preoperative transit, sigmoid resection may not be required. This study evaluated a new approach to abdominal suture rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

METHODS

A total of 81 patients (57 male, 24 female; median age 37 years, range 5-82 years) with rectal prolapse were assessed by clinical examination, anal manometry (maximum resting pressure, MRP, and squeeze pressure, MSP) and radioopaque marker transit studies. Of the 81 patients, 70 with normal preoperative transit underwent suture fixation alone, without resection, performed under spinal anaesthesia, through a 7-cm transverse left lower quadrant incision gaining access to the presacral space via a left pararectal "window", preserving the lateral stalks.

RESULTS

Average surgical time was 50 min, mortality was zero, and morbidity was 9% (three patients with wound infection, four with urinary retention). Anal incontinence improved in 43 of 53 patients (81%, p=0.001). MRP and MSP had improved at 3 months after surgery: MRP from a mean of 27.6+/-1.4 mmHg (range 2-30 mmHg) before surgery to 32.5+/-2.21 mmHg (2-60 mmHg) after surgery (p=0.008); MSP from 69.25+/-6.4 mmHg (8-153 mmHg) before surgery to 79+/-4.77 mmHg (35-157 mmHg) after surgery (p=0.001).. Transit was unchanged in 18 of 20 patients (90%) who were evaluated before and after surgery; none was constipated after surgery. At 56 months, prolapse had recurred in five patients (7%).

CONCLUSION

Abdominal suture rectopexy with a left pararectal approach without sigmoid resection in those with normal preoperative transit resulted in an improvement in anal incontinence and satisfactory long-term control of prolapse. The operation did not alter transit and did not result in significant constipation.

Perineal approaches to rectal prolapse

The management of full-thickness rectal prolapse involves surgical intervention in the majority of cases. Many procedures have been described. Perineal procedures are generally reserved for patients with multiple comorbid conditions or those considered too elderly or frail to withstand an abdominal surgical approach. They also play an important role in the management of rectal mucosal prolapse. The techniques, advantages, and complications of perineal approaches to rectal prolapse in use today are the focus of this chapter.

Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic rectopexy has become one of the most advocated treatments for full-thickness rectal prolapse, offering good functional results compared with open surgery and resulting in less postoperative pain and faster convalescence. However, laparoscopic rectopexy can be technically demanding. Once having mastered dexterity, with robotic assistance, laparoscopic rectopexy can be performed faster. Moreover, it shortens the learning curve in simple laparoscopic tasks. This may lead to faster and safer laparoscopic surgery. Robot-assisted rectopexy has been proven safe and feasible; however, until now, no study has been performed comparing costs and time consumption in conventional laparoscopic rectopexy vs. robot-assisted rectopexy.

METHODS

Our first 14 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy were reviewed and compared with 19 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic rectopexy in the same period.

RESULTS

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy did not show more complications. However, the average operating time was 39 minutes longer, and costs were euro 557.29 (or: dollars 745.09) higher.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure but results in increased time and higher costs than conventional laparoscopy.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse

This article reviews the pathogenesis, clinical presentation and surgical management of rectal prolapse. Full-thickness prolapse of the rectum causes significant discomfort because of the sensation of the prolapse itself, the mucus that it secretes, and because it tends to stretch the anal sphincters and cause incontinence. Treatment of rectal prolapse is primarily surgical. Perineal surgical repairs are well tolerated, but are generally associated with higher recurrence rates. Abdominal repairs involve fixing the rectum to the sacrum by using either mesh or sutures, and tend to have the lowest recurrence rates. If significant preoperative constipation is present, a sigmoid resection can be performed at the time of rectopexy. For many patients, diarrhea and incontinence improve after surgery. Laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse has similar morbidity and recurrence rates to open surgery, with attendant benefits of reduced length of hospital stay, postoperative pain and wound complications.