首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Management of recurrent rectal prolapse
Authors:Scott A. Fengler M.D.  Russell K. Pearl M.D.  M. Leela Prasad M.D.  Charles P. Orsay M.D.  Jose R. Cintron M.D.  Ernestine Hambrick M.D.  Herand Abcarian M.D.
Affiliation:1. Brooke Army Medical Center, F. Edward Herbert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Ft. Sam Houston, Texas
2. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Cook County Hospital, Chicago, Illinois
3. Lutheran General Hospital, University of Illinois-Chicago, Park Ridge, Illinois
4. West Side VA Hospital, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
5. Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
6. Department of Surgery, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Abstract: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.
Keywords:
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号