Vijaya T Daniel1, Jennifer S Davids2, Paul R Sturrock2, Justin A Maykel2, Uma R Phatak3, Karim Alavi2. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. Electronic address: Vijaya.Daniel@umassmemorial.org. 2. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 3. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many approaches to treat rectal prolapse exists, yet little is known regarding their safety in the elderly. METHOD: NSQIP (2008-2014) was queried to identify patients ≥ 70 years who underwent open rectopexy (OR), laparoscopic rectopexy (LR) and perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PR). Patients were selected using NSQIP's estimated probability of morbidity of ≥50th percentile. Outcomes were 30-day mortality and a composite: mortality, septic shock and organ space abscess and fascial dehiscence. RESULTS: Overall, 1361 patients underwent OR(18%), LR(15%) and PR(67%) with no difference in outcomes among 3 approaches. After adjustment of other factors, the composite was associated with PR [OR 2.5, CI 1.1, 5.7] and not with older age [OR 1.3, (CI) 0.7, 2.4]. From 2008 to 2014, LR increased from 11% to 19%; and PR decreased from 75% to 72%. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 surgical approaches carry low morbidity among the sick, elderly. PR remains the predominant approach nationally. A paradigm shift accepting the safety of abdominal approaches is needed. There should also be less focus on age in the decision-making process of surgical treatment.
BACKGROUND: Many approaches to treat rectal prolapse exists, yet little is known regarding their safety in the elderly. METHOD: NSQIP (2008-2014) was queried to identify patients ≥ 70 years who underwent open rectopexy (OR), laparoscopic rectopexy (LR) and perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PR). Patients were selected using NSQIP's estimated probability of morbidity of ≥50th percentile. Outcomes were 30-day mortality and a composite: mortality, septic shock and organ space abscess and fascial dehiscence. RESULTS: Overall, 1361 patients underwent OR(18%), LR(15%) and PR(67%) with no difference in outcomes among 3 approaches. After adjustment of other factors, the composite was associated with PR [OR 2.5, CI 1.1, 5.7] and not with older age [OR 1.3, (CI) 0.7, 2.4]. From 2008 to 2014, LR increased from 11% to 19%; and PR decreased from 75% to 72%. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 surgical approaches carry low morbidity among the sick, elderly. PR remains the predominant approach nationally. A paradigm shift accepting the safety of abdominal approaches is needed. There should also be less focus on age in the decision-making process of surgical treatment.