Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 607–613 | Cite as

Surgical treatments for rectal prolapse: how does a perineal approach compare in the laparoscopic era?

  • Monica T. YoungEmail author
  • Mehraneh D. Jafari
  • Michael J. Phelan
  • Michael J. Stamos
  • Steven Mills
  • Alessio Pigazzi
  • Joseph C. Carmichael
Article

Abstract

Background

Patients with rectal prolapse often have significant comorbidities that lead surgeons to select a perineal resection for treatment despite a reported higher recurrence rate over abdominal approaches. There is a lack of data to support this practice in the laparoscopic era. The objective of this study was to evaluate if risk-adjusted morbidity of perineal surgery for rectal prolapse is actually lower than laparoscopic surgery.

Design

A retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database as performed for patients undergoing surgical treatment of rectal prolapse between 2005 and 2011. Outcomes were analyzed according to procedure-type: laparoscopic rectopexy (LR), laparoscopic resection/rectopexy (LRR), open rectopexy (OR), open resection/rectopexy (ORR), and perineal resection (PR). A multivariate logistic regression was used to compare risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality between each procedure. Main outcome measures were 30-day morbidity and mortality.

Results

Among 3,254 cases sampled, a laparoscopic approach was used in 22 %, an open abdominal approach in 30 %, and PR in 48 %. Patients undergoing PR were older (76) and had a higher ASA (3) compared to laparoscopic (58, 2) and open abdominal procedures (58, 2). Risk-adjusted mortality could not be assessed due to a low overall incidence of mortality (0.01 %). Overall morbidity was 9.3 %. ORR was associated with a higher risk-adjusted morbidity compared to PR (OR: 1.89 CI (1.19–2.99), p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted morbidity found between LR and LRR compared to PR (OR 0.44 CI (0.19–1.03), p = 0.18; OR 1.55 CI (0.86–2.77), p = 0.18). Laparoscopic cases averaged 27 min longer than open cases (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic rectal prolapse surgery has comparable morbidity and mortality to perineal surgery. A randomized trial is indicated to validate these findings and to assess recurrence rates and functional outcomes.

Keywords

Rectal prolapse Perineal Rectopexy Laparoscopic 

Notes

Disclosures

Dr. Stamos has received educational grants and speaker fees paid to the Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine, from Ethicon, Gore, Covidien, and Olympus. Dr. Mills and Dr. Carmichael received Ethicon educational grants paid to the Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine. Dr. Pigazzi is a consultant for Intuitive Surgical and has also received consultancy fees and educational grants paid to the Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine. Dr. Jafari, Dr. Young and Michael Phelan have no disclosures. Dr. Young and Michael Phelan had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the hospitals participating in the ACS NSQIP are the source of the data used herein; they have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Classic articles in colonic and rectal surgery (1985) Edmond Delorme 1847–1929. On the treatment of total prolapse of the rectum by excision of the rectal mucous membranes or recto-colic. Dis Colon Rectum 28(7):544–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee S, Kye BH, Kim HJ, Cho HM, Kim JG (2012) Delorme’s procedure for complete rectal prolapse: does it still have it’s own role? J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28(1):13–18PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Senapati A, Gray RG, Middleton LJ et al (2013) PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis 15(7):858–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bordeianou L, Hicks CW, Kaiser AM, Alavi K, Sudan R, Wise PE. Rectal prolapse: an overview of clinical features, diagnosis, and patient-specific management strategies. J Gastrointest Surg. 19 Dec 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Melton GB, Kwaan MR (2013) Rectal prolapse. Surg clin N Am 93(1):187–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tou S, Brown SR, Malik AI, Nelson RL (2008) Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (4):CD001758Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berman IR (1992) Sutureless laparoscopic rectopexy for procidentia. Technique and implications. Dis Colon Rectum 35(7):689–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baker R, Senagore AJ, Luchtefeld MA (1995) Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open resection. Rectopexy offers excellent results. Dis Colon Rectum 38(2):199–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kariv Y, Delaney CP, Casillas S et al (2006) Long-term outcome after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 20(1):35–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boccasanta P, Rosati R, Venturi M et al (1998) Comparison of laparoscopic rectopexy with open technique in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse: clinical and functional results. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8(6):460–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Reitano MC et al (1999) Laparotomic vs. laparoscopic rectopexy in complete rectal prolapse. Dig Surg 16(5):415–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Senagore AJ (2003) Management of rectal prolapse: the role of laparoscopic approaches. Semin Laparosc Surg 10(4):197–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. http://site.acsnsqip.org. Accessed 8 Feb 2014
  15. 15.
    Huber PJ. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. 1967:221–233Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mahmoud SA, Omar W, Abdel-Elah K, Farid M (2012) Delorme’s procedure for full-thickness rectal prolapse: does it alter anorectal function. Indian J Surg 74(5):381–384PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wijffels N, Cunningham C, Dixon A, Greenslade G, Lindsey I (2011) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse is safe and effective in the elderly. Does this make perineal procedures obsolete? Colorectal Dis 13(5):561–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bachoo P, Brazzelli M, Grant A (2000) Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2):CD001758Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Solomon MJ, Young CJ, Eyers AA, Roberts RA (2002) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 89(1):35–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Purkayastha S, Tekkis P, Athanasiou T et al (2005) A comparison of open vs. laparoscopic abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 48(10):1930–1940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sajid MS, Siddiqui MR, Baig MK (2010) Open vs laparoscopic repair of full-thickness rectal prolapse: a re-meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 12(6):515–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fleming FJ, Kim MJ, Gunzler D, Messing S, Monson JR, Speranza JR (2012) It’s the procedure not the patient: the operative approach is independently associated with an increased risk of complications after rectal prolapse repair. Colorectal Dis 14(3):362–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clark CE 3rd, Jupiter DC, Thomas JS, Papaconstantinou HT (2012) Rectal prolapse in the elderly: trends in surgical management and outcomes from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. J Am Coll Surg 215(5):709–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fang SH, Cromwell JW, Wilkins KB et al (2012) Is the abdominal repair of rectal prolapse safer than perineal repair in the highest risk patients? An NSQIP analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 55(11):1167–1172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee SH, Lakhtaria P, Canedo J, Lee YS, Wexner SD (2011) Outcome of laparoscopic rectopexy versus perineal rectosigmoidectomy for full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients. Surg Endosc 25(8):2699–2702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica T. Young
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mehraneh D. Jafari
    • 1
  • Michael J. Phelan
    • 2
  • Michael J. Stamos
    • 1
  • Steven Mills
    • 1
  • Alessio Pigazzi
    • 1
  • Joseph C. Carmichael
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of California, Irvine School of MedicineOrangeUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations