Recurrent rectal prolapse

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and functional outcome of surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse and compare it with the outcome of patients who underwent primary operation for rectal prolapse. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for rectal prolapse were evaluated for age, gender, procedure, anorectal manometry and electromyography findings, and morbidity. The results for patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were compared with a group of patients matched for age, gender, surgeon, and procedure who underwent primary operations for rectal prolapse. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients underwent surgery for rectal prolapse. Twenty-seven patients, 10 initially operated on at this institution and 17 operated on elsewhere, underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. These 27 patients were compared with 27 patients with primary rectal prolapse operated on in our department. In the recurrent rectal prolapse group, prior surgery included rectopexy in 7 patients, Delorme's procedure in 7 patients, perineal rectosigmoidectomy in 7 patients, anal encirclement procedure in 4 patients, and resection rectopexy in 2 patients. Operations performed for recurrence were perineal rectosigmoidectomy in 14 patients, resection rectopexy in 8 patients, rectopexy in 2 patients, pelvic floor repair in 2 patients, and Delorme's procedure in 1 patient. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in preoperative incontinence score (recurrent rectal prolapse, 13.6±7.8vs. rectal prolapse, 12.7±7.2; range, 0–20) or manometric or electromyography findings, and there were no significant differences in mortality (0vs. 3.7 percent), mean hospital stay (5.4±2.5vs. 6.9±2.8 days), anastomotic complications (anastomotic stricture (0vs. 7.4 percent), anastomotic leak (3.7vs. 3.7 percent) and wound infection (3.7vs. 0 percent)), postoperative incontinence score (2.8±4.8vs. 1.5±2.7), or recurrence rate (14.8vs. 11.1 percent) between the two groups at a mean follow-up of 23.9 (range, 6–68) and 22 (range, 5–55) months, respectively. The overall success rate for recurrent rectal prolapse was 85.2 percent. CONCLUSION: The outcome of surgery for rectal prolapse is similar in cases of primary or recurrent prolapse. The same surgical options are valid in both scenarios.Funded in part by a generous grant from the Eleanor Naylor Dana Charitable Trust Fund and the Caporella Family.Poster presentation at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 22 to 26, 1997.     

Management of recurrent rectal prolapse

PURPOSE: Many operations have been described for the management of rectal prolapse. Despite an overall recurrence rate of greater than 15 percent, few reviews address how to deal with this problem. This report summarizes our experience with recurrent rectal prolapse and includes suggestions for reoperative management of failed repairs from both abdominal and perineal approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients (3 male) ranging in age from 22 to 92 (mean, 68) years underwent operative correction of recurrent rectal prolapse. Average time from initial operation to recurrence was 14 (range, 6–60) months. Initial operations (before recurrence) were as follows: perineal proctectomy and levatorplasty (10), anal encirclement (2), Delorme's procedure (1), and anterior resection (1). Operative procedures performed for recurrence were as follows: perineal proctectomy and levatorplasty (7), sacral rectopexy (abdominal approach; 3), anterior resection with rectopexy (2), Delorme's procedure (1), and anal encirclement (1). Average length of follow-up was 50 (range, 9–115) months. RESULTS: No further episodes of complete rectal prolapse were observed during this period. Preoperatively, three patients were noted to be incontinent to the extent that necessitated the use of perineal pads. The reoperative procedures failed to restore fecal continence in any of these three individuals. One patient died in the postoperative period after anal encirclement from an unrelated cause. CONCLUSION: Surgical management of recurrent rectal prolapse can be expected to alleviate the prolapse, but not necessarily fecal incontinence. Perineal proctectomies can be safely repeated. Resectional procedures may result in an ischemic segment between two anastomoses, unless the surgeon can resect a previous anastomosis in the repeat procedure. Nonresectional procedures such as the Delorme's procedure should be strongly considered in the management of recurrent rectal prolapse if a resectional procedure was performed initially and failed.     

Perineal rectosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse: role of levatorplasty

Abstract.Background: The management of full thickness rectal prolapse remains controversial. Although abdominal approaches have a lower recurrence rate than do perineal operations, they are associated with a higher morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of perineal rectosigmoidectomy with and without levatorplasty.Methods: Between 1989 and 1999, a total of 109 consecutive patients (10 men) underwent 120 perineal procedures. These patients were retrospectively evaluated in two groups on the basis of the type of surgery received: perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS) or perineal rectosigmoidectomy with levatorplasty (PRSL). Subsequent functional outcome and physiological parameters were assessed.Results: The patients had a mean age of 75.7 years (range, 23.0–94.8 years) and they were followed for an overall mean (in both groups combined) of 28.0 months (range, 0.4–126.4 months) after surgery. Mean duration of surgery was 78.1 min (SD=25.9) and 97.6 min (SD=32.3) in PRS and PRSL, respectively (p=0.002, unpaired t test). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of hospital stay, morbidity or mortality. Recurrence rates and mean time interval to recurrence were, respectively, 20.6% and 45.5 months in PRS compared to 7.7% and 13.3 months in PRSL (p=0.049, chi-square test; p=0.001, unpaired t test). Both groups had significant improvements in postoperative incontinence score (p<0.0001, Wilcoxons matched-pairs signed-ranks test), however, there were no significant changes in anorectal manometric findings and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency assessment.Conclusions: Perineal rectosigmoidectomy with levatorplasty is associated with a lower recurrence rate and a longer time to recurrence than perineal rectosigmoidectomy alone. Levatorplasty should be offered to patients when a perineal approach for rectal prolapse is selected.     

Management of Recurrent Rectal Prolapse: Surgical Approach Influences Outcome

Introduction Recurrent rectal prolapse is an unresolved problem and the optimal treatment is debated. This study was designed to review patterns of care and outcomes in a large cohort of patients after surgery for recurrent prolapse. Methods From 685 patients who underwent operative repair for full-thickness external rectal prolapse, we identified 78 patients (70 females; mean age, 66.9 years) who underwent surgery for recurrence. We reviewed the subsequent management and outcomes for these 78 patients. Results Mean interval to their first recurrence was 33 (range, 1–168) months. There were significantly more re-recurrences after reoperation using a perineal procedure (19/51) compared with an abdominal procedure (4/27) for their recurrent rectal prolapse (P = 0.03) at a mean follow-up of nine (range, 1–82) months. Patients undergoing abdominal repair of recurrence were significantly younger than those who underwent perineal repair (mean age, 58.5 vs. 71.5 years; P < 0.01); however, there was nosignificant difference between the two groups with regard to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (P = 0.89). Eighteen patients had surgery for a second recurrence, with perineal repairs associated with higher failure rates (50 vs. 8 percent; P = 0.07). Finally, when combining all repairs, the abdominal approach continued to have significantly lower recurrence rates (39 vs. 13 percent; P < 0.01). Conclusions The re-recurrence rate after surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse is high, even at a relatively short follow-up interval. Our data suggest that abdominal repair of recurrent rectal prolapse should be undertaken if the patient's risk profile permits this approach. Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 30 to May 5, 2005.     

Treatment of rectal prolapse in the elderly by perineal rectosigmoidectomy

The results and complications of perineal rectosigmoidectomy for complete rectal prolapse in 114 patients have been reviewed. Most patients were elderly and high risk by virtue of other concurrent medical conditions. Fourteen patients (12 percent) developed significant postoperative complications. Hospital stay was short (median, four days). Ten patients were lost to follow-up. The remaining 104 patients were followed for 3 to 90 months. Eleven patients (10 percent) developed recurrent fullthickness rectal prolapse; six of them underwent repeat perineal rectosigmoidectomy. Sixty-seven patients had fecal incontinence prior to surgery. Eleven patients underwent concomitant levatoroplasty; 10 of them either improved or regained full continence of feces postoperatively. Twenty-six of the 56 patients who underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy alone improved or regained full continence. Rectal prolapse can be successfully treated by perineal rectosigmoidectomy in elderly, highrisk patients with minimal morbidity. Levatoroplasty dramatically improves fecal incontinence occurring in association with rectal prolapse.Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Boston, Massachusetts, May 12 to 17, 1991.     

Rectal procidentia treatment by perineal rectosigmoidectomy combined with levator ani repair

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Perineal rectosigmoidectomy has gained acceptance as a valid alternative to treat rectal procidentia with the advantage of decreased surgical risk, shorter recovery time, and lower complication rates when compared to abdominal approaches, although controversies still exist about its recurrence rates and functional results. This study aimed to evaluate the results of perineal rectosigmoidectomy combined with repair of the levator ani muscles to treat rectal procidentia. METHODOLOGY: Forty-four patients who underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy with levatorplasty for rectal procidentia between 1985 and 2000 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: There were 41 women and 3 men with mean age of 76 (57 to 96) years. Mean duration of symptoms was 29.2 (1 to 40) months. Mean length of prolapsed rectum was 8.3cm and the average size of the resected segment was 21.2cm. The complication rate was 9.1% and there was no mortality associated with this procedure. Mean hospital stay was 3.9 days. During a minimum period of follow-up of 24 months (24-120) with a mean of 49 months, the recurrence rate was 7.1% (two patients presented recurrence of procidentia and another prolapse of the rectal mucosa). Anal continence improved in 36 (85.7%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Perineal rectosigmoidectomy combined with levatorplasty is a safe procedure associated with a relatively low morbidity rate, satisfactory functional results, and an acceptably low recurrence rate.     

The management of procidentia

This is a retrospective study evaluating 179 patients with complete rectal prolapse operated on at the University of Minnesota affiliated hospitals from 1953 to 1983 with no mortality. One hundred and two of 138 patients who underwent abdominal proctopexy and sigmoid resection were followed from six months to 30 years with a recurrence rate of 1.9 percent. Twenty-two of the 33 patients who underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy were followed from six months to three years with no recurrence. Nine patients who underwent abdominal proctopexy and subtotal colectomy because of colonic inertia associated with procidentia were followed from one to six years with no recurrence. Patient interviews revealed that 72 to 80 percent considered their results as excellent or good. Incontinence or persistent constipation caused the remaining patients to consider their results fair or poor, despite anatomic correction of the prolapse. Abdominal proctopexy and sigmoid resection was more likely to result in improvement of continence than was perineal rectosigmoidectomy.     

Perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier's procedure): a review of physiology,technique and outcome

Perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier's procedure), as used for the surgical treatment of full-thickness rectal prolapse, has a long history. The physiological derangement in patients with rectal prolapse is complex, frequently showing impairment of the rectoanal inhibitory reflex, intermittent high-pressure rectal motor activity, disturbances in anorectal sampling and attendant pudendal neuropathy. There are currently few defined preoperative factors in patients presenting with rectal prolapse and fecal leakage which predict for the restoration of continence after surgery. This review describes our technique of Altemeyer's procedure and analyzes the reported results of this operation, presenting those studies which assessed postoperative continence and prolapse recurrence in particular. The lack of prospective randomized data regarding this perineal approach makes clinical interpretation difficult at the present time. Received: 5 December 2001 / Accepted: 12 February 2002 Correspondence to A. P. Zbar     

A Comparison of Open vs. Laparoscopic Abdominal Rectopexy for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE Using meta-analytical techniques, this study was designed to compare open and laparoscopic abdominal procedures used to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults. METHODS Comparative studies published between 1995 and 2003, cited in the literature of open abdominal rectopexy vs. laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy, were used. The primary end points were recurrence and morbidity, and the secondary end points assessed were operative time and length of hospital stay. A random effect model was used to aggregate the studies reporting these outcomes, and heterogeneity was assessed. RESULTS Six studies, consisting of a total of 195 patients (98 open and 97 laparoscopic) were included. Analysis of the data suggested that there is no significant difference in recurrence and morbidity between laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy and open abdominal rectopexy. Length of stay was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group by 3.5 days (95 percent confidence interval, 3.1–4; P < 0.01), whereas the operative time was significantly longer in this group, by approximately 60 minutes (60.38 minutes; 95 percent confidence interval, 49–71.8). CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure, which may compare equally with the open technique with regards to recurrence and morbidity and favorably with length of stay. However large-scale randomized trials, with comparative, sound methodology are still needed to ascertain detailed outcome measures accurately.     

Quality of life after laparoscopic resection rectopexy

Purpose  

This study evaluated continence, constipation, and quality of life (QoL) after laparoscopic resection rectopexy (LRR) for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Results were compared with existing data after perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS).     

Preoperative Anal Manometry Predicts Continence After Perineal Proctectomy for Rectal Prolapse

Purpose This study examines whether preoperative anal manometry and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency predict functional outcome after perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse. Methods All adult patients treated by perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse from 1995 to 2004 were identified (N = 106). Forty-five patients underwent anal manometry and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency testing before proctectomy and they form the basis for this study. Results Perineal proctectomy with levatoroplasty (anterior 88.9 percent; posterior 75.6 percent) was performed in all patients, with a mean resection length of 10.4 cm. Four patients (8.9 percent) developed recurrent prolapse during a 44-month mean follow-up. Preoperative resting and maximal squeeze pressures were 34.2 ± 18.3 and 60.4 ± 30.5 mmHg, respectively. Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency testing was prolonged or undetectable in 55.6 percent of patients. Grade 2 or 3 fecal incontinence was reported by 77.8 percent of patients before surgery, and one-third had obstructed defecation. The overall prevalence of incontinence (77.8 vs. 35.6 percent, P < 0.0001) and constipation (33.3 vs. 6.7 percent, P = 0.003) decreased significantly after proctectomy. Patients with preoperative squeeze pressures >60 mmHg (n = 19) had improved postoperative fecal continence relative to those with lower pressures (incontinence rate, 10 vs. 54 percent; P = 0.004), despite having similar degrees of preoperative incontinence. Abnormalities of pudendal nerve function and mean resting pressures were not predictive of postoperative incontinence. Conclusions Perineal proctectomy provides relief from rectal prolapse, with good intermediate term results. Preoperative anal manometry can predict fecal continence rates after proctectomy, because patients with maximal squeeze pressures >60 mmHg have significantly improved outcomes. Supported exclusively using institutional funding. Presented at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 30 to May 5, 2005.     

The Altemeier repair: Outpatient treatment of rectal prolapse

PURPOSE: Rectal prolapse typically occurs in elderly patients, who are often poor surgical candidates because of the presence of multiple comorbidities. Abdominal approaches to procidentia have low recurrence rates but are associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier repair) is a safe and effective approach to the treatment of rectal prolapse and can be done as an outpatient procedure. In this article, the results of a series of 63 consecutive Altemeier repairs are presented. METHODS: Between February 1993 and December 1999, 63 patients (61 females) underwent Altemeier repair of rectal prolapse. The mean patient age was 79 years. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and analyzed for all patients. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 20.8 months. Seventy percent of patients were given a regional or local anesthetic. The average resected specimen length was 11.6 cm, and 83 percent of anastomoses were stapled. Sixty-two percent of patients were discharged home on the day of surgery, and 80 percent were home within 24 hours. Complications occurred in 10 percent of patients, but there was no perioperative mortality. There was a 6.4 percent recurrence rate, and all recurrences were successfully treated with repeat Altemeier repair. All 63 patients had complete objective resolution of prolapse, and 87 percent had subjective improvement after repair. CONCLUSIONS: Altemeier repair of rectal prolapse is safe, produces minimal discomfort, and does not require a general anesthetic. It is ideally suited to be done on an outpatient basis, as was done in the majority of patients in our series. The recurrence rate is slightly higher than with abdominal resections, but morbidity and cost are lower, and repeat perineal resections are easily and safely performed.     

Results of Delorme's procedure for rectal prolapse

PURPOSE: A retrospective study was undertaken to assess the results of Delorme's procedure for rectal prolapse and to determine the advantages of an innovative extended transrectal repair, which aims at performing a total pelvic floor repair. METHODS: A total of 85 patients, ranging in age from 21 to 97 years, were operated on. Sixty-five (82 percent) patients had varying degrees of fecal incontinence. Similar groups of patients were compared with regard to control of the prolapse and restoration of continence according to 1) age and medical condition and 2) operative technique: original vs.extended operation. RESULTS: Twelve patients (14 percent) developed postoperative complications. There was one perioperative death (1.2 percent). Eighty patients were followed for 6 to 136 (median, 33) months. Eleven (13.5 percent) developed recurrent full-thickness prolapse. The recurrence rate was significantly different 1) between 44 elderly and poor operative risk patients not suitable for abdominal surgery (22.5 percent) and 41 younger patients without concurrent medical conditions, electively submitted to perineal repair (5 percent) (P <0.05), and 2) between the original procedure (21 percent of 44 patients) and the modified technique (5 percent of 41 patients) (P <0.05). Forty five patients (69 percent) improved or regained full continence. No patient worsened. No residual dysfunction was induced. Restoration of continence was not influenced by selection of patients or surgical technique. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased morbidity (22 percent; P <0.05), advantages of the modified technique were 1) over the original procedure, a reduced recurrence rate, 2) over perineal proctectomy, the absence of coloanal anastomosis and better functional outcome, and 3) over abdominal rectopexy, a less aggressive approach without disturbing effects on bowel habits.     

Recurrence Rates After Abdominal Surgery for Complete Rectal Prolapse: A Multicenter Pooled Analysis of 643 Individual Patient Data

PURPOSE This study was designed to determine what impact surgical technique, means of access, and method of rectopexy have on recurrence rates following abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse.METHODS Consecutive individual patient data on age, gender, surgical technique (mobilization-only, mobilization-resection-pexy, or mobilization-pexy), means of access (open or laparoscopic), rectopexy method (suture or mesh), follow-up length, and recurrences were collected from 15 centers performing abdominal surgery for full-thickness rectal prolapse between 1979 and 2001. Recurrence was defined as the presence of full-thickness rectal prolapse after abdominal surgery. Chi-squared test and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. Recurrence-free curves were generated and compared using the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test, respectively.RESULTS Abdominal surgery consisted of mobilization-only (n = 46), mobilization-resection-pexy (n = 130), or mobilization-pexy (n = 467). There were 643 patients. After excluding center 8, there was homogeneity on recurrence rates among the centers with recurrences (n = 8) for age (hazards ratio, 0.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2–1.7; P = 0.405), gender (hazards ratio, 0.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1–2.3; P = 0.519), and center (hazards ratio, 0.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1–1.5; P = 0.142). However, there was heterogeneity between centers with (n = 8) and without recurrences (n = 6) for gender (P = 0.0003), surgical technique (P < 0.0001), means of access (P = 0.01), and rectopexy method (P < 0.0001). The median length of follow-up of individual centers varied from 4 to 127 months (P < 0.0001). There were 38 recurrences at a median follow-up of 43 (range, 1–235) months. The pooled one-, five-, and ten-year recurrence rates were 1.06, 6.61, and 28.9 percent, respectively. Age, gender, surgical technique, means of access, and rectopexy method had no impact on recurrence rates.CONCLUSIONS Although this study is likely underpowered, the impact of mobilization-only on recurrence rates was similar to that of other surgical techniques.Presented at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Dallas, Texas, May 8 to 13, 2004     

Strategy for Selection of Type of Operation for Rectal Prolapse Based on Clinical Criteria

PURPOSE: Reports of outcome after surgery for rectal prolapse predominantly relate to single operative procedures. A single surgical operation is not appropriate for all patients with rectal prolapse. We describe a selective policy based on clinical criteria. METHODS: Patients were offered surgery according to the following broad clinical protocol. Those who were unfit for abdominal surgery had a perineal operation. The remainder had a suture abdominal rectopexy. A sigmoid resection was added for patients in whom incontinence was not a predominant symptom. RESULTS: Surgery was performed in 159 patients. Of these, 57 had a perineal operation, 65 had fixation rectopexy, and 37 had resection rectopexy. There were no in-hospital deaths, and major complications occurred in five patients (3.5 percent). Minimum follow-up was 3 years. Of the 143 patients with long-term follow-up, recurrence occurred in 7 (5 percent). Constipation increased from 41 to 43 percent (59–61/143) and incontinence decreased from 43 to 19 percent (61 to 27/143). CONCLUSIONS: A selective policy has improved outcome compared with reports of a single operation. Future studies might consider an objective method of selecting the type of operation for rectal prolapse. Presented at the meetings of the Scottish Society of Coloproctology, Stirling, Scotland, March 20, 1998, the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, Edinburgh, Scotland, May 13 to 15, 1998, and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Jersey, Channel Islands, United Kingdom, June 29 to July 1, 1998     

Surgery for Rectal Prolapse: Orr-Loygue Ventral Rectopexy With Limited Dissection Prevents Postoperative-Induced Constipation Without Increasing Recurrence

Purpose Abdominal rectopexy is the preferred surgical technique for the treatment of total rectal prolapse. In many reported series, its results are impaired by induced constipation. Lateral rectal ligaments preservation could prevent constipation but increase recurrence rates. We report anatomic and functional results of abdominal Orr-Loygue ventral rectopexy with dissection limited to anterior and posterior rectal wall. Methods Consecutive patients with total rectal prolapse or intra-anal rectal prolapse associated to fecal incontinence or outlet obstruction were treated by abdominal rectopexy. Recurrences, correction of symptoms, and induced constipation were prospectively analyzed. Results Seventy-three patients were treated between 1993 and 2004. Recurrence was observed in 3 of 73 patients (4.1 percent) after a mean follow-up period of 28.6 (range, 6–84) months. Overall patient satisfaction (correction of prolapse, incontinence, and/or outlet obstruction) after the procedure was classified in three categories: Cured: n = 45 (61.6 percent); Improved: n = 24 (32.9 percent); Failure: n = 4 (5.5 percent). Postoperative constipation appeared in 2 of 36 (5.5 percent) preoperatively nonconstipated patients and worsened in 2 of 37 (5.4 percent) preoperatively constipated patients. Conclusions Orr-Loygue abdominal ventral rectopexy with limited dissection and preservation of rectal lateral ligaments is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse, or internal prolapse associated with fecal incontinence or outlet obstruction. Preservation of lateral ligaments seems to prevent postoperative constipation without increasing the risk of prolapse recurrence.     

Long-Term Functional Outcomes After Laparoscopic and Open Rectopexy for the Treatment of Rectal Prolapse

Purpose  Laparoscopic rectopexy to treat full-thickness rectal prolapse has proven short-term benefits, but there is little long-term follow-up and functional outcome data available. Methods  Patients who had abdominal surgery for prolapse during a ten-year period were identified and interviewed to ascertain details of prolapse recurrence, constipation, incontinence, cosmesis, and satisfaction. Additional details on recurrences that required surgery and mortality were obtained from chart review and the State Death Registry. Results  Of 321 prolapse operations, laparoscopic rectopexy was performed in 126 patients, open rectopexy in 46, and resection rectopexy in 21 patients. At a median follow-up of five years after laparoscopic rectopexy, there were five (4 percent) confirmed full-thickness recurrences that required surgery. Actuarial recurrence rates of laparoscopic rectopexy were 6.9 percent at five years (95 percent confidence interval, 0.1–13.8 percent) and 10.8 percent at ten years (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9–20.1 percent). Seven patients underwent rubber band ligation for mucosal prolapse and seven required other surgical procedures. There was one recurrence after open rectopexy (2.4 percent) and one after resection rectopexy (4.7 percent), and there was no significant difference between groups. Overall constipation scores were not increased after laparoscopic rectopexy, with no significant difference to open rectopexy or resection rectopexy. Conclusions  This study has demonstrated that laparoscopic rectopexy has reliable long-term results for treating rectal prolapse, including low recurrence rates and no overall change in functional outcomes. Dr. Byrne was supported by the Notaras Fellowship from the University of Sydney, the Scientific Foundation of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the training board of the Colorectal Society of Australasia. Presented at the Tripartite Colorectal meeting, Dublin, Ireland, July 5 to 7, 2005. Reprints are not available.     

Perineal excision of rectal procidentia in elderly high-risk patients

PURPOSE: This report presents a ten-year experience with perineal excision and posterior levator ani repair in elderly, high-risk patients with complete rectal procidentia. METHODS: Seventy-two patients with rectal prolapse were treated with perineal excision. Nine presented with acute incarcerated rectal prolapse. Mortality, morbidity, recurrence rates, and improvement of anal continence were assessed. RESULTS: Recurrence rate was 5.5 percent. Improvement in anal continence was seen in 66.7 percent of patients. Morbidity and mortality was low. CONCLUSIONS: Perineal excision of rectal prolapse is safe and has a low recurrence rate. Posterior levator ani repair seems to improve anal continence.Poster presentation at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois, May 2 to 7, 1993.     

Laparoscopically-Assisted Resection Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Ten Years’ Experience

PURPOSE This study has been undertaken to audit a single-center experience with laparoscopically-assisted resection rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. The clinical outcomes and long-term results were evaluated.METHODS The data were prospectively collected for the duration of the operation, time to passage of flatus postoperatively, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. For follow-up, patients received a questionnaire or were contacted. The data were divided into quartiles over the study period, and the differences in operating time and length of hospital stay were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test.RESULTS Between March 1992 and October 2003, a total of 117 patients underwent laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse. The median operating time during the first quartile (representing the early experience) was 180 minutes compared with 110 minutes for the fourth quartile (Kruskal-Wallis test for operating time = 35.523, 3 df, P < 0.0001). Overall morbidity was 9 percent (ten patients), with one death (<1 percent). One patient had a ureteric injury requiring conversion. One minor anastomotic leak occurred, necessitating laparoscopic evacuation of a pelvic abscess. Altogether, 77 patients were available for follow-up. The median follow-up was 62 months. Eighty percent of the patients reported alleviation of their symptoms after the operation. Sixty-nine percent of the constipated patients experienced an improvement in bowel frequency. No patient had new or worsening symptoms of constipation after surgery. Two (2.5 percent) patients had full-thickness rectal prolapse recurrence. Mucosal prolapse recurred in 14 (18 percent) patients. Anastomotic dilation was performed for stricture in five (4 percent) patients.CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopically-assisted resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse provides a favorable functional outcome and low recurrence rate. Shorter operating time is achieved with experience. The minimally invasive technique benefits should be considered when offering rectal prolapse patients a transabdominal approach for repair, and emphasis should now be on advanced training in the laparoscopic approach.Reprints are not available.Presented at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Dallas, Texas, May 8 to 13, 2004     

Long-term results and functional outcome after ripstein rectopexy

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate operative mortality, morbidity, and functional results after Ripstein rectopexy for rectal prolapse and internal rectal intussusception. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients with rectal prolapse and 43 with internal rectal intussusception were included. All patient records were studied and complications registered. Long-term follow-up was possible in 105 patients and performed by clinical examination and standardized interview, telephone interview, or patient records. Seventy-six patients were prospectively evaluated, comparing bowel function before and after rectopexy. RESULTS: There was no operative mortality. Operative morbidity was 33 percent, and most complications were minor. Severe early complications included one large-bowel obstruction and one transient ureteric stenosis. Median time of follow-up was seven years in patients with rectal prolapse and 5.4 years in patients with internal rectal intussusception. Late complications included two rectovaginal fistulas and one lethal sigmoid fecaloma. Five patients underwent subtotal colectomy for severe constipation. There was one recurrent prolapse (1.6 percent). Functional evaluation showed that incontinence improved (P=0.049), whereas the number of bowel movements per week decreased (P<0.001). Frequency of emptying difficulties did not change significantly in patients with rectal prolapse but increased in patients with internal rectal intussusception (P=0.038). CONCLUSION: Ripstein rectopexy can be performed with low mortality and recurrence rate, but with a high early complication rate. There were also some serious late complications. Continence was improved, although increased constipation was a problem in some patients, especially among those with internal rectal intussusception.Supported by grants from Förenade Liv Mutual Group Life Insurance Company, Stockholm, Sweden; Kjell and Märta Beijer's foundation; Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg's foundation; KI foundations; and Bert von Kantzow's research foundation.