Literature DB >> 14702646

Strategy for selection of type of operation for rectal prolapse based on clinical criteria.

A J Brown1, J H Anderson, R F McKee, I G Finlay.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Reports of outcome after surgery for rectal prolapse predominantly relate to single operative procedures. A single surgical operation is not appropriate for all patients with rectal prolapse. We describe a selective policy based on clinical criteria.
METHODS: Patients were offered surgery according to the following broad clinical protocol. Those who were unfit for abdominal surgery had a perineal operation. The remainder had a suture abdominal rectopexy. A sigmoid resection was added for patients in whom incontinence was not a predominant symptom.
RESULTS: Surgery was performed in 159 patients. Of these, 57 had a perineal operation, 65 had fixation rectopexy, and 37 had resection rectopexy. There were no in-hospital deaths, and major complications occurred in five patients (3.5 percent). Minimum follow-up was 3 years. Of the 143 patients with long-term follow-up, recurrence occurred in 7 (5 percent). Constipation increased from 41 to 43 percent (59-61/143) and incontinence decreased from 43 to 19 percent (61 to 27/143).
CONCLUSIONS: A selective policy has improved outcome compared with reports of a single operation. Future studies might consider an objective method of selecting the type of operation for rectal prolapse.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14702646     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-003-0013-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  21 in total

1.  Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier.

Authors:  F Elagili; B Gurland; X Liu; J Church; G Ozuner
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 3.781

2.  Digital assessment of lower rectum fixity in rectal prolapse (DALR): a simple clinical anatomical test to determine the most suitable approach (abdominal versus perineal) for repair.

Authors:  Deya Marzouk; Michael J Ramdass; Amyn Haji; Mansoor Akhtar
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2005-09-01       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients.

Authors:  A D'Hoore; F Penninckx
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Comparison of abdominal and perineal procedures for complete rectal prolapse: an analysis of 104 patients.

Authors:  Jong Lyul Lee; Sung Soo Yang; In Ja Park; Chang Sik Yu; Jin Cheon Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 1.859

5.  Abdominal approaches for rectal prolapse.

Authors:  Bashar Safar; Anthony M Vernava
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2008-05

6.  Endoscopic perineal approach to the presacral space: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Michel Gagner; Dorothée H Nieuwenhuis; Sergio J Bardaro; Esther C J Consten
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy better than laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  L Ramage; P Georgiou; P Tekkis; E Tan
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 8.  The role of synthetic and biologic materials in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Ramon A Brown; C Neal Ellis
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2014-12

9.  Treatment of rectal prolapse in children with cow milk injection sclerotherapy: 30-year experience.

Authors:  Mirko Zganjer; Ante Cizmic; Irenej Cigit; Bozidar Zupancic; Igor Bumci; Ljiljana Popovic; Antun Kljenak
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  A new technique for suture rectopexy without resection for rectal prolapse.

Authors:  C A H Liyanage; G Rathnayake; K I Deen
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 3.781

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.