PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and functional outcome of surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse and compare it with the outcome of patients who underwent primary operation for rectal prolapse. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for rectal prolapse were evaluated for age, gender, procedure, anorectal manometry and electromyography findings, and morbidity. The results for patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were compared with a group of patients matched for age, gender, surgeon, and procedure who underwent primary operations for rectal prolapse. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients underwent surgery for rectal prolapse. Twenty-seven patients, 10 initially operated on at this institution and 17 operated on elsewhere, underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. These 27 patients were compared with 27 patients with primary rectal prolapse operated on in our department. In the recurrent rectal prolapse group, prior surgery included rectopexy in 7 patients, Delorme's procedure in 7 patients, perineal rectosigmoidectomy in 7 patients, anal encirclement procedure in 4 patients, and resection rectopexy in 2 patients. Operations performed for recurrence were perineal rectosigmoidectomy in 14 patients, resection rectopexy in 8 patients, rectopexy in 2 patients, pelvic floor repair in 2 patients, and Delorme's procedure in 1 patient. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in preoperative incontinence score (recurrent rectal prolapse, 13.6 +/- 7.8 vs. rectal prolapse, 12.7 +/- 7.2; range, 0-20) or manometric or electromyography findings, and there were no significant differences in mortality (0 vs. 3.7 percent), mean hospital stay (5.4 +/- 2.5 vs. 6.9 +/- 2.8 days), anastomotic complications (anastomotic stricture (0 vs. 7.4 percent), anastomotic leak (3.7 vs. 3.7 percent) and wound infection (3.7 vs. 0 percent), postoperative incontinence score (2.8 +/- 4.8 vs. 1.5 +/- 2.7), or recurrence rate (14.8 vs. 11.1 percent) between the two groups at a mean follow-up of 23.9 (range, 6-68) and 22 (range, 5-55) months, respectively. The overall success rate for recurrent rectal prolapse was 85.2 percent. CONCLUSION: The outcome of surgery for rectal prolapse is similar in cases of primary or recurrent prolapse. The same surgical options are valid in both scenarios.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and functional outcome of surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse and compare it with the outcome of patients who underwent primary operation for rectal prolapse. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for rectal prolapse were evaluated for age, gender, procedure, anorectal manometry and electromyography findings, and morbidity. The results for patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were compared with a group of patients matched for age, gender, surgeon, and procedure who underwent primary operations for rectal prolapse. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients underwent surgery for rectal prolapse. Twenty-seven patients, 10 initially operated on at this institution and 17 operated on elsewhere, underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. These 27 patients were compared with 27 patients with primary rectal prolapse operated on in our department. In the recurrent rectal prolapse group, prior surgery included rectopexy in 7 patients, Delorme's procedure in 7 patients, perineal rectosigmoidectomy in 7 patients, anal encirclement procedure in 4 patients, and resection rectopexy in 2 patients. Operations performed for recurrence were perineal rectosigmoidectomy in 14 patients, resection rectopexy in 8 patients, rectopexy in 2 patients, pelvic floor repair in 2 patients, and Delorme's procedure in 1 patient. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in preoperative incontinence score (recurrent rectal prolapse, 13.6 +/- 7.8 vs. rectal prolapse, 12.7 +/- 7.2; range, 0-20) or manometric or electromyography findings, and there were no significant differences in mortality (0 vs. 3.7 percent), mean hospital stay (5.4 +/- 2.5 vs. 6.9 +/- 2.8 days), anastomotic complications (anastomotic stricture (0 vs. 7.4 percent), anastomotic leak (3.7 vs. 3.7 percent) and wound infection (3.7 vs. 0 percent), postoperative incontinence score (2.8 +/- 4.8 vs. 1.5 +/- 2.7), or recurrence rate (14.8 vs. 11.1 percent) between the two groups at a mean follow-up of 23.9 (range, 6-68) and 22 (range, 5-55) months, respectively. The overall success rate for recurrent rectal prolapse was 85.2 percent. CONCLUSION: The outcome of surgery for rectal prolapse is similar in cases of primary or recurrent prolapse. The same surgical options are valid in both scenarios.
Authors: Carlos Placer; Jose M Enriquez-Navascués; Ander Timoteo; Garazi Elorza; Nerea Borda; Lander Gallego; Yolanda Saralegui Journal: Surg Res Pract Date: 2015-12-10