Sameh Hany Emile1, Hossam Elfeki2, Mostafa Shalaby3, Ahmad Sakr4, Pierpaolo Sileri5, Steven D Wexner6. 1. Department of General Surgery, Colorectal Surgery Unit, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Egypt. Electronic address: sameh200@hotmail.com. 2. Department of General Surgery, Colorectal Surgery Unit, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Egypt; Department of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: hossamelfeki@gmail.com. 3. Department of General Surgery, Colorectal Surgery Unit, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Egypt; Department of General Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: mostafashalaby@mans.edu.eg. 4. Department of General Surgery, Colorectal Surgery Unit, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Egypt. Electronic address: ahmadsakr1987@gmail.com. 5. Department of General Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: piersileri@yahoo.com. 6. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, United States. Electronic address: wexners@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Several procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) exist. These procedures are performed via the abdominal or perineal approach. Perineal procedures for rectal prolapse involve either resection or suspension and fixation of the rectum. The present review aimed to assess the outcomes of the perineal resectional procedures including Altemeier procedure (AP), Delorme procedure (DP), and perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSR) in the treatment of CRP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the current literature for the outcomes of perineal resectional procedures for CRP was conducted. Databases queried included PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane library. The main outcomes of the review were the rates of recurrence of CRP, improvement in bowel function, and complications. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies involving 2647 (2390 females) patients were included in the review. The mean age of patients was 69.1 years. Recurrence of CRP occurred in 16.6% of patients. The median incidences of recurrence were 11.4% for AP, 14.4% for DP, and 13.9% for PSR. Improvement in fecal incontinence occurred in 61.4% of patients after AP, 69% after DP, and 23.5% after PSR. Complications occurred in 13.2% of patients. The median complication rates after AP, DP and PSR were 11.1%, 8.7%, and 11.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Perineal resectional procedures were followed by a relatively high incidence of recurrence, yet an acceptably low complication rate. Definitive conclusions on the superiority of any procedure cannot be reached due to the significant heterogeneity of the studies.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Several procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) exist. These procedures are performed via the abdominal or perineal approach. Perineal procedures for rectal prolapse involve either resection or suspension and fixation of the rectum. The present review aimed to assess the outcomes of the perineal resectional procedures including Altemeier procedure (AP), Delorme procedure (DP), and perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSR) in the treatment of CRP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the current literature for the outcomes of perineal resectional procedures for CRP was conducted. Databases queried included PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane library. The main outcomes of the review were the rates of recurrence of CRP, improvement in bowel function, and complications. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies involving 2647 (2390 females) patients were included in the review. The mean age of patients was 69.1 years. Recurrence of CRP occurred in 16.6% of patients. The median incidences of recurrence were 11.4% for AP, 14.4% for DP, and 13.9% for PSR. Improvement in fecal incontinence occurred in 61.4% of patients after AP, 69% after DP, and 23.5% after PSR. Complications occurred in 13.2% of patients. The median complication rates after AP, DP and PSR were 11.1%, 8.7%, and 11.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Perineal resectional procedures were followed by a relatively high incidence of recurrence, yet an acceptably low complication rate. Definitive conclusions on the superiority of any procedure cannot be reached due to the significant heterogeneity of the studies.
Authors: Antonio Tarasconi; Gennaro Perrone; Justin Davies; Raul Coimbra; Ernest Moore; Francesco Azzaroli; Hariscine Abongwa; Belinda De Simone; Gaetano Gallo; Giorgio Rossi; Fikri Abu-Zidan; Vanni Agnoletti; Gianluigi de'Angelis; Nicola de'Angelis; Luca Ansaloni; Gian Luca Baiocchi; Paolo Carcoforo; Marco Ceresoli; Alain Chichom-Mefire; Salomone Di Saverio; Federica Gaiani; Mario Giuffrida; Andreas Hecker; Kenji Inaba; Michael Kelly; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Yoram Kluger; Ari Leppäniemi; Andrey Litvin; Carlos Ordoñez; Vittoria Pattonieri; Andrew Peitzman; Manos Pikoulis; Boris Sakakushev; Massimo Sartelli; Vishal Shelat; Edward Tan; Mario Testini; George Velmahos; Imtiaz Wani; Dieter Weber; Walter Biffl; Federico Coccolini; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 5.469