Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rectal Prolapse: What Is the Best Approach for Repair?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Difficult Decisions in Colorectal Surgery

Part of the book series: Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach ((DDSURGERY))

Abstract

Rectal prolapse can be repaired through an abdominal or perineal approach. Choosing between these approaches has traditionally focused on patient age and comorbidities; younger, healthier patients undergo an abdominal procedure while elderly patients often receive a perineal procedure [1, 2]. In North America, abdominal repair is frequently carried out with laparoscopic posterior rectopexy, with or without resection, while perineal repair is performed with an Altemeier procedure. Meanwhile, in Europe, and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy takes precedence as the preferred abdominal repair and the Delorme procedure is utilized more frequently [2].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Senapati A, et al. PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(7):858–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Formijne Jonkers HA, et al. Evaluation and surgical treatment of rectal prolapse: an international survey. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(1):115–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bachoo P, Brazzelli M, Grant A. Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD001758.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Deen KI, et al. Abdominal resection rectopexy with pelvic floor repair vs. perineal rectosigmoidectomy and pelvic floor repair for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 1994;81(2):302–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rothenhoefer S, et al. DeloRes trial: study protocol for a randomized trial comparing two standardized surgical approaches in rectal prolapse – Delorme's procedure vs. resection rectopexy. Trials. 2012;13:155.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim DS, et al. Complete rectal prolapse: evolution of management and results. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42(4):460–6; discussion 466–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee JL, et al. Comparison of abdominal and perineal procedures for complete rectal prolapse: an analysis of 104 patients. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2014;86(5):249–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Yakut M, et al. Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. A retrospective analysis of 94 cases. Int Surg. 1998;83(1):53–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hammond K, et al. Rectal prolapse: a 10-year experience. Ochsner J. 2007;7(1):24–32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Madiba TE, Baig MK, Wexner SD. Surgical management of rectal prolapse. Arch Surg. 2005;140(1):63–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Deen KI. Laparoscopic prosthesis fixation rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 1994;81(8):1244.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Young MT, et al. Surgical treatments for rectal prolapse: how does a perineal approach compare in the laparoscopic era? Surg Endosc. 2015;29(3):607–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Altemeier WA, et al. Nineteen years’ experience with the one-stage perineal repair of rectal prolapse. Ann Surg. 1971;173(6):993–1006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Williams JG, et al. Treatment of rectal prolapse in the elderly by perineal rectosigmoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992;35(9):830–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zbar AP, et al. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier’s procedure): a review of physiology, technique and outcome. Tech Coloproctol. 2002;6(2):109–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Habr-Gama A, et al. Rectal procidentia treatment by perineal rectosigmoidectomy combined with levator ani repair. Hepatogastroenterology. 2006;53(68):213–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Altomare DF, et al. Long-term outcome of Altemeier’s procedure for rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(4):698–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Elagili F, et al. Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme vs Altemeier. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19(9):521–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Agachan F, et al. Results of perineal procedures for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Am Surg. 1997;63(1):9–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chun SW, et al. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse: role of levatorplasty. Tech Coloproctol. 2004;8(1):3–8; discussion 8–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gopal KA, et al. Rectal procidentia in elderly and debilitated patients. Experience with the Altemeier procedure. Dis Colon Rectum. 1984;27(6):376–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ramanujam PS, Venkatesh KS. Perineal excision of rectal prolapse with posterior levator ani repair in elderly high-risk patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 1988;31(9):704–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Prasad ML, et al. Perineal proctectomy, posterior rectopexy, and postanal levator repair for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 1986;29(9):547–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Boccasanta P, et al. Impact of new technologies on the clinical and functional outcome of Altemeier’s procedure: a randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(5):652–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Agachan F, et al. Comparison of three perineal procedures for the treatment of rectal prolapse. South Med J. 1997;90(9):925–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McKee RF, et al. A prospective randomized study of abdominal rectopexy with and without sigmoidectomy in rectal prolapse. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1992;174(2):145–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Luukkonen P, Mikkonen U, Jarvinen H. Abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy vs. rectopexy alone for rectal prolapse: a prospective, randomized study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1992;7(4):219–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sayfan J, et al. Sutured posterior abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy compared with Marlex rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 1990;77(2):143–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Raftopoulos Y, et al. Recurrence rates after abdominal surgery for complete rectal prolapse: a multicenter pooled analysis of 643 individual patient data. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(6):1200–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Boccasanta P, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic rectopexy with open technique in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse: clinical and functional results. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1998;8(6):460–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Solomon MJ, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic vs. open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 2002;89(1):35–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tou S, et al, Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008(4):CD001758.

    Google Scholar 

  33. D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 2004;91(11):1500–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Samaranayake CB, et al. Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(6):504–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Maggiori L, et al. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective long-term evaluation of functional results and quality of life. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17(4):431–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Evans C, et al. A multicenter collaboration to assess the safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(8):799–807.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Colon & Rectal Surgery, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Saleh Eftaiha MD & Anders Mellgren MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Saleh Eftaiha MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anders Mellgren MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Mellgren MD, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Neil Hyman

  2. Medical Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Konstantin Umanskiy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eftaiha, S., Mellgren, A. (2017). Rectal Prolapse: What Is the Best Approach for Repair?. In: Hyman, N., Umanskiy, K. (eds) Difficult Decisions in Colorectal Surgery. Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40223-9_31

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40223-9_31

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40222-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40223-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation