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

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.

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.