International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 219–222 | Cite as

Abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy vs. rectopexy alone for rectal prolapse: A prospective, randomized study

  • P. Luukkonen
  • U. Mikkonen
  • H. Järvinen
Original Articles


A prospective, randomized study comparing abdominal rectopexy and sigmoid resection (Group I; n=15) with polyglycolic acid mesh rectopexy without sigmoidectomy (Group II; n=15) for complete rectal prolapse was carried out. One patient in Group I died of myocardial infarction, one patient in Group II had a small bowel obstruction and two patients in Group I an asymptomatic stricture of the anastomosis. Otherwise a safe and efficient control of the prolapse was achieved in both groups. Eleven (73%) patients in Group I and 12 (80%) patients in Group II were more or less incontinent before surgery. After correction of prolapse incontinence improved in eight and ten patients in Groups I and II, but became slightly worse in one patient in Group II. A similar rise in anal pressures was measured in both groups after surgery. Constipation disappeared in three and seven patients in Groups I and II six months after surgery, but five additional patients in Group II became severely constipated and colectomy had to be performed in one of them. Surgery caused no significant change in colonic transit times even though increased transit times were measured in each group six months postoperatively. Sigmoid resection in conjunction with rectopexy does not seem to increase operative morbidity but tends to diminish postoperative constipation possibly by causing less outlet obstruction.


Une étude prospective randomisée a été faite comparant la rectopexie abdominale avec résection sigmoïdienne (groupe I n-15) avec la rectopexie utilisant une mèche d'acide polyglycolique sans sigmoïdectomie (groupe II n=15) pour traiter le prolapsus rectal complet. Un patient du groupe I est mort d'infarctus du myocarde, un patient du groupe II a eu une occlusion intestinale et deux patients du groupe II une sténose asymptomatique de leur anastomose. Par ailleurs un contrôle sur et efficace du prolapsus a été obtenu dans les deux groupes. 11 (73%) patients du groupe I et 12 (80%) patients du groupe II étaient plus ou moins incontinents avant l'opération. Après correction du prolapsus l'incontinence s'est amélioré chez 8 et 10 patients respectivement, mais a augmenté légèrement chez un patient du groupe II. Une augmentation similaire des pressions anales a été constatée dans les deux groupes après chirugie. La constipation a disparu chez 3 et 7 patients des groupes I et II six mois après chirurgie mais 5 patients supplémentaires du groupe II ont développé une constipation sévère et une colectomie a dû être pratiquée chez un d'entre eux. La chirurgie n'a provoqué aucune modification significative du temps de transit colique même un temps de transit augmenté a été trouvé dans chacun des groupes six mois après l'opération. La résection sigmoïdienne associée à la rectopexie ne semble pas augmenter la morbidité opératoire mais tend à diminuer la constipation postopératoire peut-être en diminuant l'obstruction terminale.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sayfan J, Pinho M, Alexander-Williams J, Keighley MRB (1990) Sutured posterior abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy compared with Marlex® rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 77:143–145Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Speakman CTM, Madden MV, Nicholls RJ, Kamm MA (1991) Lateral ligament division during rectopexy causes constipation but prevents recurrence: results of a prospective randomized study. Br J Surg 78:1431–1433Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams JG, Wong DW, Jensen L, Rothenberger DA, Goldberg SM (1991) Incontinence and rectal prolapse: a prospective manometric study. Dis Colon Rectum 34:209–216Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sainio PA, Voutilainen PE, Husa AI (1991) Recovery of anal sphincter function following transabdominal repair of rectal prolapse: cause of improved continence? Dis Colon Rectum 34:816–821Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blatchford GJ, Perry RE, Thorson AG, Christensen MA (1989) Rectopexy without resection for rectal prolapse. Am J Surg 158:574–576Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yoshioka K, Heyen F, Keighley MRB (1989) Functional results after posterior abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 32:835–838Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allen-Mersh TG, Turner MJ, Mann CV (1990) Effect of abdominal Ivalon rectopexy on bowel habit and rectal wall. Dis Colon Rectum 33:550–553Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Husa A, Sainio P, v. Smitten K (1988) Abdominal rectopexy and sigmoid resection (Frykman-Goldberg operation) for rectal prolapse. Acta Chir Scand 154:221–224Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watts JD, Rothenberger DA, Buls JG, Goldberg SM, Nivatrongs S (1985) The management of procidentia: a 30 years experience. Dis Colon Rectum 28:96–102Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arndt M, Pircher W (1988) Absorbable mesh in the treatment of rectal prolapse. Int J Colorect Dis 3:141–143Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sainio PA, Halme LE, Husa AI (1991) Anal encirclement with polypropelene mesh for rectal prolapse and incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 34:905–908Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramajunam PS, Venkatesh KS (1988) Perineal excision of rectal prolapse with posterior levator ani repair in elderly highrisk patients. Dis Colon Rectum 31:704–706.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedman R, Muggia-Sulam M, Freund HR (1983) Experience with the one-stage perineal repair of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 26:789–791Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hiltunen KM, Matikainen M, Auvinen O, Hietanen P (1986) Clinical and manometric evaluation of anal sphincter function in patients with rectal prolapse. Am J Surg 151:489–492Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Broden G, Dolk A, Holmström B (1988) Recovery of the internal anal sphincter following rectopexy: a possible explanation for continence improvement. Int J Colorect Dis 3:23–28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McKee RF, Lauder JC, Poon FW, Aitchison MA, Finlay IG (1992) A prospective randomized study of abdominal rectopexy with and without sigmoidectomy in rectal prolapse. Surg Gynecol and Obstet 174:145–148Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dolk A, Broden G, Holmström B, Johansson C, Nilson BY (1990) Slow transit of the colon associated with severe constipation after the Ripstein operation. A clinical and physiological study. Dis Colon Rectum 33:786–790Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Luukkonen
    • 1
  • U. Mikkonen
    • 1
  • H. Järvinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Second Department of SurgeryUniversity Central HospitalHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations