J Buhr1, M W Hoffmann1, E H Allemeyer2. 1. Klinik für Allgemein- u. Viszeralchirurgie mit Sektion Proktologie, Raphaelsklinik Münster, Loerstraße 23, 48143, Münster, Deutschland. 2. Klinik für Allgemein- u. Viszeralchirurgie mit Sektion Proktologie, Raphaelsklinik Münster, Loerstraße 23, 48143, Münster, Deutschland. e.allemeyer@raphaelsklinik.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No generally accepted gold standard exists for the operative therapy of rectal prolapse in its variety of manifestations. Existing evidence suggests that an individualized choice of procedure provides the best result for each single patient. Knowledge of possible pitfalls and intraoperative management of complications in frequently applied procedures are important prerequisites for reliable treatment of affected patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A consecutive series of 233 patients (June 2011-May 2016) with individualized choice of operative procedure in patients with rectal prolapse and rectocele based on an algorithm for a clinical treatment pathway and stapled hemorrhoidopexy were included. Intraoperative pitfalls and complications and their management (iPCM) were prospectively documented and analyzed. RESULTS: The iPCM could be classified into three different categories: group I: iPCM was immediately noted and intraoperatively treated with no impact on the further clinical course (n = 20), group II: iPCM was successfully treated conservatively within a short time after the procedure (n = 9) and group III: iPCM required surgical revision (n = 5). CONCLUSION: Individualized treatment of rectal prolapse and rectocele requires a broad spectrum of methods in specialized coloproctology units. A clinical treatment pathway facilitates the optimal choice of procedure. Overall the complication rates during surgical treatment of transanal rectal prolapse are low; however, available operative procedures hold specific risks and knowledge of these risks helps to avoid them. Once complications occur, measures demonstrated in this study lead to normal clinical courses in the majority of cases.
BACKGROUND: No generally accepted gold standard exists for the operative therapy of rectal prolapse in its variety of manifestations. Existing evidence suggests that an individualized choice of procedure provides the best result for each single patient. Knowledge of possible pitfalls and intraoperative management of complications in frequently applied procedures are important prerequisites for reliable treatment of affected patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A consecutive series of 233 patients (June 2011-May 2016) with individualized choice of operative procedure in patients with rectal prolapse and rectocele based on an algorithm for a clinical treatment pathway and stapled hemorrhoidopexy were included. Intraoperative pitfalls and complications and their management (iPCM) were prospectively documented and analyzed. RESULTS: The iPCM could be classified into three different categories: group I: iPCM was immediately noted and intraoperatively treated with no impact on the further clinical course (n = 20), group II: iPCM was successfully treated conservatively within a short time after the procedure (n = 9) and group III: iPCM required surgical revision (n = 5). CONCLUSION: Individualized treatment of rectal prolapse and rectocele requires a broad spectrum of methods in specialized coloproctology units. A clinical treatment pathway facilitates the optimal choice of procedure. Overall the complication rates during surgical treatment of transanal rectal prolapse are low; however, available operative procedures hold specific risks and knowledge of these risks helps to avoid them. Once complications occur, measures demonstrated in this study lead to normal clinical courses in the majority of cases.
Authors: V Andresen; P Enck; T Frieling; A Herold; P Ilgenstein; N Jesse; M Karaus; M Kasparek; J Keller; R Kuhlbusch-Zicklam; H Krammer; M Kreis; P Layer; A Madisch; H Matthes; H Mönnikes; S Müller-Lissner; J Preiss; M Sailer; M Schemann; J Schwille-Kiuntke; W Voderholzer; I van der Voort; T Wedel; C Pehl Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: A Arroyo; F X González-Argenté; M García-Domingo; E Espin-Basany; F De-la-Portilla; F Pérez-Vicente; R Calpena Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 6.939