Management of patients with rectal prolapse: the 2017 Dutch guidelines
- 13 Downloads
Rectal prolapse—both external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse—is a disabling condition. In view of the overwhelming number of surgical procedures described for the treatment of rectal prolapse, a comprehensive update concerning the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for this condition is required to draw recommendations for clinical practice. This initiative was commissioned by the Dutch Association for Surgery (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Heelkunde) as a multidisciplinary collaboration.
Nine questions outlining the diagnostic approach, conservative and surgical management of rectal prolapse were selected. A systematic literature search for evidence was then conducted in the Medline and Embase databases.
Recommendations included diagnostic approach, methods to assess complaints of fecal incontinence and/or obstructive defecation and treatment options, both conservative and surgical. A level of evidence was assigned to each statement following the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
These guidelines for clinical practice are useful in the diagnosis and treatment of rectal prolapse. There are many statements requiring a higher level of evidence due to a lack of studies.
KeywordsRectal prolapse Rectopexy Practice guideline
The authors are grateful to the original Dutch drafting committee: S.J. van der Hagen, A. Pronk, R.J.F. Felt-Bersma, M. Stegeman, E.J.L. Bosboom, J.A.J. Kalkdijk, D.A. van Reijn and A.H.P. Meier. The authors’ gratefulness also extends to the advisory group: G.G.A. Malmberg, T. Boele, W.A. Bemelman, S. Festen, D.D.E. Zimmerman. The authors also warmly acknowledge E.A. Rake, H.L. Vreeken, W.A. van Enst.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
- 5.Roovers JP, Everhardt E, Dietz V et al (2014) Dutch national guideline prolapse. NVOGGoogle Scholar
- 6.Schünemann H, Brozk J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (2013) GRADE handbook. http://gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2017
- 15.Regadas FSP, Haas EM, Abbas MA et al (2011) Prospective multicenter trial comparing echodefecography with defecography in the assessment of anorectal dysfunction in patients with obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 54:686–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/DCR.0b013e3182113ac7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Bols EMJ, Hendriks HJM, Berghmans LCM et al (2013) Responsiveness and interpretability of incontinence severity scores and FIQL in patients with fecal incontinence: a secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 24:469–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1886-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Klintrup K et al (2014) Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications. Tech Coloproctol 18:151–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-013-1042-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Isbert C, Reibetanz J, Jayne DG et al (2010) Comparative study of contour transtar and STARR procedure for the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS)—feasibility, morbidity and early functional results. Color Dis 12:901–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01932.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.McKee R, Lauder J, Poon F et al (1992) A prospective randomized study of abdominal rectopexy with and without sigmoidectomy in rectal prolapse. Surg Gynecol Obs 174:148–148Google Scholar
- 50.De Hoog DENM, Heemskerk J, Nieman FHM et al (2009) Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study. Int J Color Dis 24:1201–1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0766-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 55.Rickert A, Kienle P, Kuthe A et al (2012) A randomised, multi-centre, prospective, observer and patient blind study to evaluate a non-absorbable polypropylene mesh vs. a partly absorbable mesh in incisional hernia repair. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 397:1225–1234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-012-1009-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar