Rectal prolapse and pelvic descent

Delorme's vs. Altemeier's in the management of rectal procidentia: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rectal prolapse is a distressing condition for patients and no consensus exists on optimal surgical management. We compared outcomes of two common perineal operations (Delorme's and Altemeier's) used in the treatment of rectal prolapse.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. Peri- and post-operative outcomes following Delorme's and Altemeier's procedures were extracted. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate, anastomotic dehiscence rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were total operative time, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay and coloanal anastomotic stricture formation. Revman 5.3 was used to perform all statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 605 patients were selected; 286 underwent Altemeier's procedure (standalone), 39 had Altemeier's with plasty (perineoplasty or levatoroplasty), and 280 had Delorme's. Recurrence rate [OR: 0.66; 95% CI [0.44-0.99], P = 0.05] was significantly lower and anastomotic dehiscence [RD: 0.05; 95% CI [0.00-0.09], P = 0.03] was significantly higher in the Altemeier's group. However, sub group analysis of Altemeier's with plasty failed to show significant differences in these outcomes compared with the Delorme's procedure. Length of hospital stay was significantly more following an Altemeier's operation compared with Delorme's [MD: 3.05, 95% CI [0.95 - 5.51], P = 0.004]. No significant difference was found in total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, coloanal anastomotic stricture formation and mortality rates between the two approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

A direct comparison of two common perineal procedures used in the treatment of rectal prolapse demonstrated that the Altemeier's approach was associated with better outcomes. Future, well-designed high quality RCTs with long-term follow up are needed to corroborate our findings.

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.

Value of Defecography in the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Management of the Modified Wells Procedure for Rectal Prolapse

The main aim of this study was to explore the role of defecography in the preoperative diagnosis and postoperative evaluation of rectal prolapse surgery (modified Wells procedure). We collected and summarized the X-ray performance and then analyzed the results of 107 patients with defecatory dysfunction who underwent defecography from January 2020 to March 2021. Furthermore, the preoperative and 6-month postoperative defecography results and clinical symptoms of 25 patients who underwent rectal prolapse surgery (modified Wells procedure) were compared. Results showed that among the 107 patients with defecation dysfunction, women had worse defecography results than men (P < 0.01). A total of 25 patients successfully completed the surgery without complications such as infection and intestinal fistula and there was no recurrence at 12 months of follow-up. Compared with the preoperative results, anorectal angle during defecation, the depth of rectocele, and perineal descent were significantly improved after the surgery (P < 0.01). Moreover, the patient's feeling of obstructed defecation and incomplete defecation was significantly relieved compared to that before the procedure (P < 0.01). In conclusion, defecography can be used to diagnose rectal prolapse preoperatively and evaluate the surgical effect combined with clinical symptoms postoperatively, which provides a clinical reference.