Literature DB >> 29502314

Trends in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a population analysis.

A C Rogers1, N McCawley1, A M Hanly2, J Deasy1, D A McNamara1,3, J P Burke4,5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Rectal prolapse is a common condition, with conflicting opinions on optimal surgical management. Existing literature is predominantly composed of case series, with a dearth of evidence demonstrating current, real-world practice. This study investigated recent national trends in management of rectal prolapse in the Republic of Ireland (ROI).
METHODS: This population analysis used a national database to identify patients admitted in the ROI primarily for the management of rectal prolapse, as defined by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10). Demographics, procedures, comorbidities, and outcomes were obtained for patients admitted from 2005 to 2015 inclusive.
RESULTS: There were 2648 admissions with a primary diagnosis of rectal prolapse; 39.3% underwent surgical correction. The majority were treated with either a perineal resection (47.2%) or an abdominal rectopexy ± resection (45.1%). The population-adjusted rate of operative intervention increased over the study period, from 25 to 42 per million (p < 0.001), with no change in the mean age of patients over time (p = 0.229). The application of a laparoscopic approach increased over time (p = 0.001). Patients undergoing an abdominal rectopexy were younger than those undergoing a perineal procedure (64.1 ± 17.3 versus 75.2 ± 15.5 years, p < 0.001) despite having a similar Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.097). The mortality rate for elective repair was 0.2%.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the popularization of ventral mesh rectopexy over the study period, perineal resection Delorme's procedure remains the most common procedure employed for the correction of rectal prolapse in the ROI, with specific approach determined by age.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Charlson Comorbidity Index; Rectal prolapse; Rectopexy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29502314     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-018-2971-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  19 in total

1.  PPH-01 versus PPH-03 to perform STARR for the treatment of hemorrhoids associated with large internal rectal prolapse: a prospective multicenter randomized trial.

Authors:  Adolfo Renzi; Antonio Brillantino; Giandomenico Di Sarno; Francesco D'Aniello; Alfredo Giordano; Alberto Stefanuto; Daniele Aguzzi; Antonio Daffinà; Francesco Ceci; Giuseppe D'Oriano; Massimo Mercuri; Alfonso Alderisio; Luis Perretta; Francesco Carrino; Giovanni Sernia; Ettore Greco; Marcello Picchio; Giuseppe Marino; Angelo Goglia; Amilcare Trombetti; Biagio De Pascalis; Sabatino Panella; Osvaldo Bochicchio; Alfredo Bandini; Luca Del Re; Francesco Longo; Osvaldo Micera
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2011-07-07       Impact factor: 2.058

2.  Life after PROSPER. What do people do for external rectal prolapse?

Authors:  C K Gunner; A Senapati; J M A Northover; S R Brown
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.788

3.  The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery.

Authors:  A H MacLennan; A W Taylor; D H Wilson; D Wilson
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 6.531

4.  No rectopexy versus rectopexy following rectal mobilization for full-thickness rectal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Joshua R Karas; Selman Uranues; Donato F Altomare; Selman Sokmen; Zoran Krivokapic; Jiri Hoch; Ivan Bartha; Roberto Bergamaschi
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

Authors:  M J Solomon; C J Young; A A Eyers; R A Roberts
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  Abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy vs. rectopexy alone for rectal prolapse: a prospective, randomized study.

Authors:  P Luukkonen; U Mikkonen; H Järvinen
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 7.  Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults.

Authors:  Samson Tou; Steven R Brown; Richard L Nelson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-11-24

8.  Prospective randomized trial of Ivalon sponge versus sutured rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Authors:  J R Novell; M J Osborne; M C Winslet; A A Lewis
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Rectal intussusception and unexplained faecal incontinence: findings of a proctographic study.

Authors:  R Collinson; C Cunningham; H D'Costa; I Lindsey
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-04-28       Impact factor: 3.788

10.  PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse.

Authors:  A Senapati; R G Gray; L J Middleton; J Harding; R K Hills; N C M Armitage; L Buckley; J M A Northover
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.788

View more
  3 in total

1.  Long-term outcomes of robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse.

Authors:  Agathe Postillon; Cyril Perrenot; Adeline Germain; Marie-Lorraine Scherrer; Cyrille Buisset; Laurent Brunaud; Ahmet Ayav; Laurent Bresler
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Abdominal ventral rectopexy with colectomy for obstructed defecation syndrome: An alternative option for selected patients.

Authors:  Li Wang; Chun-Xue Li; Yue Tian; Jing-Wang Ye; Fan Li; Wei-Dong Tong
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2020-12-06       Impact factor: 1.337

3.  External rectal prolapse: abdominal or perineal repair for men? A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Bang Hu; Qi Zou; Zhenyu Xian; Dan Su; Chao Liu; Li Lu; Minyi Luo; Zixu Chen; Keyu Cai; Han Gao; Hui Peng; Wuteng Cao; Donglin Ren
Journal:  Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf)       Date:  2022-02-21
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.