Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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):544–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):13–18

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mahmoud N. Rectal Prolapse. http://www.fascrs.org/physicians/education/core_subjects/2004/rectal_prolapse/. Accessed 8 Feb 2014

  4. Senapati A, Gray RG, Middleton LJ et al (2013) PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. Colorectal Dis 15(7):858–868

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 2013

  6. Melton GB, Kwaan MR (2013) Rectal prolapse. Surg clin N Am 93(1):187–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tou S, Brown SR, Malik AI, Nelson RL (2008) Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (4):CD001758

  8. Berman IR (1992) Sutureless laparoscopic rectopexy for procidentia. Technique and implications. Dis Colon Rectum 35(7):689–693

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Baker R, Senagore AJ, Luchtefeld MA (1995) Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open resection. Rectopexy offers excellent results. Dis Colon Rectum 38(2):199–201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):35–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):460–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Reitano MC et al (1999) Laparotomic vs. laparoscopic rectopexy in complete rectal prolapse. Dig Surg 16(5):415–419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Senagore AJ (2003) Management of rectal prolapse: the role of laparoscopic approaches. Semin Laparosc Surg 10(4):197–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. http://site.acsnsqip.org. Accessed 8 Feb 2014

  15. Huber PJ. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. 1967:221–233

  16. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  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):381–384

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):561–566

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

  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):35–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1930–1940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):515–525

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):362–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):709–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1167–1172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2699–2702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, 333 City Blvd. West Suite 850, Orange, CA, 92868, USA

    Monica T. Young, Mehraneh D. Jafari, Michael J. Stamos, Steven Mills, Alessio Pigazzi & Joseph C. Carmichael

  2. Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

    Michael J. Phelan

Authors
  1. Monica T. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehraneh D. Jafari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Phelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael J. Stamos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steven Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alessio Pigazzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joseph C. Carmichael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica T. Young.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Young, M.T., Jafari, M.D., Phelan, M.J. et al. Surgical treatments for rectal prolapse: how does a perineal approach compare in the laparoscopic era?. Surg Endosc 29, 607–613 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3707-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3707-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation