Comparison of four surgical approaches for rectal prolapse: multicentre randomized clinical trial

Surgical approaches for complete rectal prolapse

Complete rectal prolapse, characterized by the protrusion of the rectal wall layers through the anal canal, poses significant treatment challenges, particularly due to controversies surrounding surgical approaches and the absence of a standardized assessment system. This study comprehensively reviews the main surgical techniques for complete rectal prolapse, categorized as transabdominal and transperineal/transanal procedures. Despite various techniques, challenges persist, including high recurrence rates and potential complications. Factors influencing the choice of the surgical approach include patient characteristics, symptomatology, and surgical expertise. With advances in medical technology, laparoscopic and robotic surgeries offer promising avenues, albeit with considerations of cost and accessibility. Ultimately, treatment plans tailored to the individual needs of the patient and surgical expertise are essential. Although controversies remain, the continued refinement of surgical techniques holds promise for improving outcomes in complete rectal prolapse surgery.

Comparison between perineal and abdominal approaches for the surgical treatment of recurrent external rectal prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Although surgery is the most effective treatment for rectal prolapse, a risk of recurrence reported in literature is 6-27%. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the abdominal and perineal approach for surgical treatment of recurrent external rectal prolapse.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Embase was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and Embase was conducted from January 2000 to May 2024, for studies reporting surgery for recurrent external rectal prolapse. The primary outcome was the recurrence at the last available follow-up. Secondary endpoints included surgical complications and length of postoperative hospitalization.

RESULTS

Nine studies, with a total of 531 patients, were included in the analysis. The overall recurrence rate among the studies was 26.3% at a mean follow-up time of 30.5 months. The proportional meta-analysis showed a recurrence rate of 27.9% (95% CI 22.54 to 33.85, I2 75.1%, p = 0.0012) after perineal surgery and of 15.6% (95% CI 11.43 to 20.64, I2 63.7%, p = 0.016) after abdominal surgery. Comparing the two approaches, the meta-analysis showed an OR of 0.66 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.17, I2 66.5%, p = 0.029). The OR for complications was 1.44 (95% CI 0.77 to 2.70, I2 0.0%, p = 0.945), while SMD for length of hospital stay was 0.49 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.79, I2- 67.9%, p = 0.077).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that the recurrence rate for the perineal approach was almost double the recurrence rate for the abdominal approach. More randomized trials are needed to determine which is the best approach for patients with recurrent external rectal prolapse.

Addition of anal encirclement to perineal proctosigmoidectomy: a retrospective review

Background

The optimal approach for the surgical management of rectal prolapse is individualized based on anatomical, functional, and surgical factors. In patients with significant comorbidities, perineal approaches are often preferred even though they are associated with higher recurrence rates compared to an abdominal approach. Although anal encirclement was one of the first procedures described for this condition, it is seldom employed given its high recurrence rates. There is currently a lack of data addressing a combination surgery, wherein both a perineal proctosigmoidectomy and anal encirclement are performed simultaneously.

Aims

To evaluate the efficacy of combining perineal proctosigmoidectomy with anal encirclement using Nylon sutures compared to perineal proctosigmoidectomy alone.

Methods

This was a single institution, non-randomized, retrospective study conducted at the Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada (July 2017 to October 2022). Patients over the age of 18 with full-thickness rectal prolapse who underwent either perineal proctosigmoidectomy alone or perineal proctosigmoidectomy with anal encirclement were included. There were 23 patients in the perineal proctosigmoidectomy group and 21 patients in the perineal proctosigmoidectomy with anal encirclement group. The primary outcome was prolapse recurrence. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of hospital stay, and post-operative complications.

Results

Patients who received perineal proctosigmoidectomy with anal encirclement had significantly lower rates of recurrent prolapse (9.5%) compared to perineal proctosigmoidectomy alone (34.8%) (p = 0.02). Patients who underwent the combined procedure had a shorter length of stay by 2.3 days (p = 0.03). There was no difference in post-operative complications or operating time.

Conclusions

Routine anal encirclement in perineal proctosigmoidectomy reduces recurrence rates and length of stay without increasing operating time or complications.

Quality of Life, Functional Outcomes, and Recurrence After Resection Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse Repair

BACKGROUND

Resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy are widely accepted surgical options for the treatment of rectal prolapse; however, reports on long-term recurrence rates and functional outcomes are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We compared quality of life, long-term functional outcomes, and prolapse recurrence after resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy.

DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively collected rectal prolapse surgery database.

SETTINGS

Patients who underwent resection rectopexy or ventral mesh rectopexy at our center between 2009 and 2016 were included.

PATIENTS

Two hundred twenty patients were included, of whom 208 (94%) were women; 85 (39%) underwent resection rectopexy and 135 (61%) ventral mesh rectopexy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prolapse recurrence.

RESULTS

The resection rectopexy group was younger (median 52 vs 60 years old, p = 0.02) and had more open procedures (20% vs 9%, p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 110 (interquartile range 94-146) months for resection rectopexy and 113 (87-137) months for ventral mesh rectopexy, recurrences occurred in 21 (26%) in the resection rectopexy and 50 (39%) in the ventral mesh rectopexy group ( p = 0.041). The median time to recurrence was 44 (18-80) months in the resection rectopexy group and 28.5 (11-52.5) months in the ventral mesh rectopexy group ( p = 0.14). There were no differences in the recurrence rate for primary prolapses in resection rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy. The recurrence rate for redo prolapses was higher in the ventral mesh rectopexy group at 63% at 10 years versus 25% in the resection rectopexy group ( p = 0.006). Functional outcomes were similar between the 2 groups.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective review, recall bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes after resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy were comparable. Ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with a higher prolapse recurrence rate after recurrent rectal prolapse repair. See Video Abstract .

CALIDAD DE VIDA, RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES Y RECURRENCIA DESPUS DE LA RECTOPEXIA POR RESECCIN VERSUS LA RECTOPEXIA VENTRAL CON MALLA PARA LA REPARACIN DEL PROLAPSO RECTAL

ANTECEDENTES:La rectopexia de resección y la rectopexia ventral con malla son opciones quirúrgicas ampliamente aceptadas para el tratamiento del prolapso rectal; sin embargo, faltan informes sobre las tasas de recurrencia a largo plazo y los resultados funcionales.OBJETIVO:Comparamos la calidad de vida, los resultados funcionales a largo plazo y la recurrencia del prolapso después de la rectopexia de resección versus la rectopexia ventral con malla.DISEÑO:Revisamos retrospectivamente nuestra base de datos de cirugía de prolapso rectal recopilada prospectivamente.ENTORNO CLÍNICO:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a rectopexia resección o rectopexia ventral con malla en nuestro centro entre 2009 y 2016.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron 220 pacientes, de los cuales 208 (94%) eran mujeres; 85 (39%) fueron sometidos a rectopexia de resección, 135 (61%) rectopexia ventral con malla.INTERVENCIONES:Ninguna.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Recurrencia del prolapso.RESULTADOS:El grupo de rectopexia de resección era más joven (mediana 52 vs 60 años, p = 0,02) y tenía más procedimientos abiertos (20% vs 9%, p < 0,001). Después de una mediana de seguimiento de 110 (RIC 94 - 146) meses para la rectopexia de resección y 113 (87 - 137) para la rectopexia ventral con malla, se produjeron recurrencias en 21 (26%) del grupo de rectopexia de resección y en 50 (39%) del grupo de rectopexia ventral con malla (p = 0,041). La mediana del tiempo hasta la recurrencia fue de 44 (18 - 80) meses en el grupo de rectopexia de resección y 28,5 (11 - 52,5) en el grupo de rectopexia ventral con malla (p = 0,14). No hubo diferencias en la tasa de recurrencia de prolapsos primarios en la rectopexia de resección versus la rectopexia con malla ventral. La tasa de recurrencia de prolapsos repetidos fue mayor en el grupo de rectopexia con malla ventral, 63% a los 10 años, versus 25% en el grupo de rectopexia con resección (p = 0,006). Los resultados funcionales fueron similares entre los dos grupos.LIMITACIONES:Revisión retrospectiva, sesgo.CONCLUSIÓN:La calidad de vida a largo plazo y los resultados funcionales después de la rectopexia de resección y la rectopexia ventral con malla fueron comparables. La rectopexia ventral con malla se asoció con una mayor tasa de recurrencia del prolapso después de la reparación del prolapso rectal recurrente. (Traducción-Ingrid Melo ).

Rectal Prolapse Surgery: Balancing Effectiveness and Safety in Abdominal and Perineal Approaches

The event in which the entire thickness of the rectum protrudes through the anal canal is called rectal prolapse. This ailment is common in the elderly population and especially in females. It causes some disastrous symptoms, including incontinence to feces and flatus, constipation, and discomfort, because of the weakness in the anorectal junction, making it mandatory for surgical correction. Over time, several surgical techniques have been developed; these are broadly classified into two categories: abdominal and perineal techniques. However, the best approach for surgery that minimizes recurrence while maximizing patient quality of life is still up for debate. A comprehensive review was conducted adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines; a systematic search of the PubMed Database was performed to identify studies published between 2000 and 2024 with the keywords ((Rectal Prolapse) AND ("Perineal" OR "Laparotomy")). The inclusion criteria were focused on studies comparing the outcomes between surgical approaches at the abdominal and perineal locations, particularly on the recurrence rate, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes. In total, 21 studies were included in the review: these ranged from retrospective analysis and prospective studies to a multicentric randomized trial. In this review, abdominal approaches, particularly in the form of laparoscopic rectopexy, consistently demonstrated improved results compared to perineal techniques, with a much lower recurrence rate. The rates of mortality and morbidity were also remarkably lower in laparoscopic operations, which were advocated for suitable patients. However, perineal approaches, while still producing higher rates of recurrence, are a valuable alternative for elderly and high-risk patients due to their being relatively less invasive. Laparoscopic rectopexy can be considered a better surgical method for rectal prolapse, as it has a lower recurrence rate and better functional outcomes. In contrast, perineal approaches will have their place in the management of rectal prolapse, given patient selection for patients at high risk with regard to surgery. Future research should be directed toward multicenter trials with long-term outcomes in order further to fine-tune surgery strategy and criteria for patient selection.

Development of a Consensus-Derived Synoptic Operative Report for Rectal Prolapse: A Report From the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium

BACKGROUND

Narrative operative reports may omit or obscure data from an operation.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a synoptic operative report for rectal prolapse that includes core descriptors as developed by an international consensus of expert pelvic floor surgeons.

DESIGN

Descriptors for patients undergoing rectal prolapse surgery were generated through review. Members of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium were recruited to participate in a 3-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale. Descriptors that achieved 70% agreement were kept from the first round, and descriptors scoring 40% to 70% agreement were recirculated in subsequent rounds. A final list of operative descriptors was determined at a consensus meeting, with a final consensus meeting more than 70% agreement.

SETTINGS

This survey was administered to members of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium.

PATIENTS

No patient data are included in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Descriptors meeting greater than 70% agreement were selected.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-six surgeons representing colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, and urologists distributed throughout North America (56%), Latin America (4%), Western Europe (29%), Asia (4%), and Africa (1%) participated in the first round of Delphi voting. After 2 additional rounds and a final consensus meeting, 16 of 30 descriptors met 70% consensus. Descriptors that met consensus were surgery type, posterior dissection, ventral dissection, mesh used, type of mesh used, mesh location, sutures used, suture type, pouch of Douglas and peritoneum reclosed, length of rectum imbricated, length of bowel resected, levatoroplasty, simultaneous vaginal procedure, simultaneous gynecologic procedure, simultaneous enterocele repair, and simultaneous urinary incontinence procedure.

LIMITATIONS

The survey represents the views of members of the Delphi panel and may not represent the viewpoints of all surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi survey establishes international consensus descriptors for intraoperative variables that have been used to produce a synoptic operative report. This will help establish defined operative reporting to improve clinical communication, quality measures, and clinical research. See Video Abstract .

DESARROLLO DE UN PROTOCOLO OPERATORIO SINPTICO DERIVADO DE CONSENSO PARA EL PROLAPSO RECTAL UN INFORME DEL CONSORCIO DE TRASTORNOS DEL PISO PLVICO

ANTECEDENTES:Los protocolos operativos narrativos frecuentemente pueden omitir u oscurecer datos de un procedimiento.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo es desarrollar un protocolo operatorio sinóptico para el prolapso rectal que incluya descriptores básicos desarrollados por un consenso internacional de cirujanos expertos en piso pélvico.DISEÑO:Los descriptores para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de prolapso rectal se generaron mediante revisión. Se reclutó a miembros del Consorcio de Trastornos del Piso Pélvico para participar en un proceso Delphi de 3 rondas utilizando una escala Likert de 9 puntos. Los descriptores que lograron un 70% de acuerdo se mantuvieron en la primera ronda, los descriptores que obtuvieron un 40-70% de acuerdo se recircularon en rondas posteriores. Se determinó una lista final de descriptores operativos en una reunión de consenso, con una reunión de consenso final de más del 70% de acuerdo.ESCENARIO:Esta fue una encuesta administrada a miembros del Consorcio de Trastornos del Piso Pélvico.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se seleccionaron los descriptores que cumplieron más del 70% de acuerdo.RESULTADOS:Ciento setenta y seis cirujanos en representación de cirujanos colorrectales, uroginecólogos y urólogos distribuidos en América del Norte (56%), América Latina (4%), Europa Occidental (29%), Asia (4%) y África (1%) participaron en la primera ronda de votación Delphi. Después de dos rondas adicionales y una reunión de consenso final, 16 de 30 descriptores alcanzaron un 70% de consenso. Los descriptores que alcanzaron consenso fueron: tipo de cirugía, disección posterior, disección ventral, malla utilizada, tipo de malla utilizada, ubicación de la malla, suturas utilizadas, tipo de sutura, cierre del fondo de saco de Douglas y peritoneo, longitud del recto superpuesto, longitud del intestino resecado, plastía de los elevadores , procedimiento vaginal simultáneo, procedimiento ginecológico simultáneo, reparación simultánea de enterocele y procedimiento simultáneo de incontinencia urinaria.LIMITACIONES:La encuesta representa las opiniones de los miembros del panel Delphi y puede no representar los puntos de vista de todos los cirujanos.CONCLUSIONES/DISCUSIÓN:Esta encuesta Delphi establece descriptores de consenso internacional para las variables intraoperatorias que se han utilizado para producir un protocolo operatorio sinóptico. Esto ayudará a establecer protocolos operativos definidos para mejorar la comunicación clínica, las medidas de calidad y la investigación clínica. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

Core Descriptor Sets for Rectal Prolapse Outcomes Research Using a Modified Delphi Consensus

BACKGROUND

There is wide variation in prolapse care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse to enhance outcomes research.

DESIGN

Descriptors for patients undergoing rectal prolapse surgery were generated through a systematic review and expert opinion. Stakeholders were recruited internationally via listserv and social media. Experts were encouraged to consider the minimum descriptors that could be considered during clinical care, and descriptors were grouped into core descriptor sets. Consensus was defined as greater than 70% agreement.

SETTING

A 3-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on expert results was distributed via survey. The final interactive meeting used a polling platform.

PARTICIPANTS

The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium interdisciplinary group convened to advance the clinical care of pelvic floor disorders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

To achieve expert consensus for core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse using a modified Delphi method.

RESULTS

A total of 206 providers participated, with survey response rates of 82% and 88%, respectively. Responders were from North America (56%), Europe (29%), and Latin America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa (15%). Ninety-one percent of participants identified as colorectal surgeons and 80% reported >5 years of experience (35% reported >15 years). Fifty-seven attendees participated in the final meeting and voted on core descriptor sets. Ninety-three percent of participants agreed that descriptors such as age, BMI, frailty, nutrition, and the American Society of Anesthesiology score correlated to physiologic status. One hundred percent of participants agreed to include baseline bowel function. One hundred percent of participants reported willingness to complete a synoptic operative report. Follow-up intervals 1, 3, and 5 years after surgery (76%) with a collection of recurrence and functional outcomes at those time periods reached an agreement.

LIMITATIONS

Individual bias, self-identification of experts, and paucity of knowledge related to rectal prolapse.

CONCLUSIONS

This represents the first steps toward international consensus to unify language and data collection processes for rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract .

CONJUNTOS DE DESCRIPTORES BSICOS PARA LA INVESTIGACIN DE RESULTADOS DE PROLAPSO RECTAL MEDIANTE UN CONSENSO DELPHI MODIFICADO

ANTECEDENTES:Existe una amplia variación en la atención del prolapso.OBJETIVO:Determinar conjuntos de descriptores básicos para el prolapso rectal para mejorar los resultados de la investigación.DISEÑO:Los descriptores para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de prolapso rectal se generaron a través de una revisión sistemática y la opinión de expertos. Las partes interesadas fueron reclutadas internacionalmente a través de listas de servicio y redes sociales. Se animó a los expertos a considerar los descriptores mínimos que podrían considerarse durante la atención clínica, y los descriptores se agruparon en conjuntos de descriptores básicos. El consenso se definió como > 70% de acuerdo.AJUSTE:Se distribuyó mediante encuesta un proceso Delphi de tres rondas que utiliza una escala Likert de 9 puntos basada en resultados de expertos. La reunión interactiva final utilizó una plataforma de votación.PARTICIPANTES:El grupo interdisciplinario del Consorcio de Trastornos del Suelo Pélvico se reunió para avanzar en la atención clínica de los trastornos del suelo pélvico.MEDIDAS PRINCIPALES DE RESULTADOS:Lograr el consenso de expertos para los conjuntos de descriptores básicos para el prolapso rectal utilizando un método Delphi modificado.RESULTADOS:Participaron 206 proveedores con tasas de respuesta a la encuesta del 82% y 88% respectivamente. Los encuestados procedían de América del Norte (56%), Europa (29%) y América Latina, Asia, Australia, Nueva Zelanda y África (15%). El noventa y uno por ciento se identificó como cirujanos colorrectales y el 80% reportó más de 5 años de experiencia (35% > 15 años). Cincuenta y siete asistentes participaron en la reunión final y votaron sobre conjuntos de descriptores básicos. El noventa y tres por ciento estuvo de acuerdo en que descriptores como edad, índice de masa corporal, fragilidad, nutrición y puntuación de la Sociedad Estadounidense de Anestesiología se correlacionaban con el estado fisiológico. El cien por ciento estuvo de acuerdo en incluir la función intestinal inicial. El 100% refirió disposición para realizar un informe operativo sinóptico. Los intervalos de seguimiento 1,3,5 años después de la cirugía (76%) con un conjunto de recurrencias y los resultados funcionales en esos períodos de tiempo coincidieron.LIMITACIONES:Sesgo individual, autoidentificación de los expertos y escasez de conocimientos relacionados con el prolapso rectal.CONCLUSIONES:Esto representa los primeros pasos hacia un consenso internacional para unificar el lenguaje y los procesos de recolección de datos para el prolapso rectal. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

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

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

A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse

PURPOSE

Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse can be undertaken via an abdominal or a perineal approach. The present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of different abdominal and perineal procedures for rectal prolapse in terms of recurrence, complications, and improvement in fecal incontinence (FI).

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized clinical trials comparing two or more procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROB-2 tool. The main outcomes were recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse, complications, operation time, and improvement in FI.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with 728 patients were included. The follow-up ranged between 12 and 47 months. Posterior mesh rectopexy had significantly lower odds of recurrence than did the Altemeier procedure (logOR, - 12.75;  95% credible intervals, - 40.91, - 1.75), Delorme procedure (- 13.10; - 41.26, - 2.09), resection rectopexy (- 11.98; - 41.36, - 0.19), sponge rectopexy (- 13.19; - 42.87, - 0.54), and sutured rectopexy (- 13.12; - 42.58, - 1.50), but similar odds to ventral mesh rectopexy (- 12.09; - 41.7, 0.03). Differences among the procedures in complications, operation time, and improvement in FI were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior mesh rectopexy ranked best with the lowest recurrence while perineal procedures ranked worst with the highest recurrence rates.

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.

A case report of largest rectal prolapse in the literature successfully treated with Altemeier's procedure

Background

The rectal prolapse is defined as the concentric protrusion of full or partial thickness of the rectum or rectosigmoid via the anus. This is an increasing clinical concern that is usually found in old female patients.

Cases presentation

A 39-year-old male patient was referred due to an un-reduceable rectal projection from a week ago. The primary endeavor for reduction of the projection under sedation and after local mannitol treatment at the operation room was unsuccessful, so surgical resection and reduction were planned for the patient.

Conclusion

Management of rectal prolapse has always been one of the challenges of colorectal surgery. For patients with incarcerated prolapse manual reduction under sedation is used. If the reduction is unsuccessful, surgical procedures are used.

•

The rectal prolapse is defined as the concentric protrusion of full or partial thickness of the rectum or rectosigmoid via the anus.

•

Management of rectal prolapse has always been one of the challenges of colorectal surgery.

•

Giant rectal prolapse defined as segment of rectosigmoid larger than 10 cm in length.