PURPOSE: Many operations have been described for the management of rectal prolapse. Despite an overall recurrence rate of greater than 15 percent, few reviews address how to deal with this problem. This report summarizes our experience with recurrent rectal prolapse and includes suggestions for reoperative management of failed repairs from both abdominal and perineal approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients (3 male) ranging in age from 22 to 92 (mean, 68) years underwent operative correction of recurrent rectal prolapse. Average time from initial operation to recurrence was 14 (range, 6-60) months. Initial operations (before recurrence) were as follows: perineal proctectomy and levatorplasty (10), anal encirclement (2), Delorme's procedure (1), and anterior resection (1). Operative procedures performed for recurrence were as follows: perineal proctectomy and levatorplasty (7), sacral rectopexy (abdominal approach; 3), anterior resection with rectopexy (2), Delorme's procedure (1), and anal encirclement (1). Average length of follow-up was 50 (range, 9-115) months. RESULTS: No further episodes of complete rectal prolapse were observed during this period. Preoperatively, three patients were noted to be incontinent to the extent that necessitated the use of perineal pads. The reoperative procedures failed to restore fecal continence in any of these three individuals. One patient died in the postoperative period after anal encirclement from an unrelated cause. CONCLUSION: Surgical management of recurrent rectal prolapse can be expected to alleviate the prolapse, but not necessarily fecal incontinence. Perineal proctectomies can be safely repeated. Resectional procedures may result in an ischemic segment between two anastomoses, unless the surgeon can resect a previous anastomosis in the repeat procedure. Nonresectional procedures such as the Delorme's procedure should be strongly considered in the management of recurrent rectal prolapse if a resectional procedure was performed initially and failed.
PURPOSE: Many operations have been described for the management of rectal prolapse. Despite an overall recurrence rate of greater than 15 percent, few reviews address how to deal with this problem. This report summarizes our experience with recurrent rectal prolapse and includes suggestions for reoperative management of failed repairs from both abdominal and perineal approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients (3 male) ranging in age from 22 to 92 (mean, 68) years underwent operative correction of recurrent rectal prolapse. Average time from initial operation to recurrence was 14 (range, 6-60) months. Initial operations (before recurrence) were as follows: perineal proctectomy and levatorplasty (10), anal encirclement (2), Delorme's procedure (1), and anterior resection (1). Operative procedures performed for recurrence were as follows: perineal proctectomy and levatorplasty (7), sacral rectopexy (abdominal approach; 3), anterior resection with rectopexy (2), Delorme's procedure (1), and anal encirclement (1). Average length of follow-up was 50 (range, 9-115) months. RESULTS: No further episodes of complete rectal prolapse were observed during this period. Preoperatively, three patients were noted to be incontinent to the extent that necessitated the use of perineal pads. The reoperative procedures failed to restore fecal continence in any of these three individuals. One patient died in the postoperative period after anal encirclement from an unrelated cause. CONCLUSION: Surgical management of recurrent rectal prolapse can be expected to alleviate the prolapse, but not necessarily fecal incontinence. Perineal proctectomies can be safely repeated. Resectional procedures may result in an ischemic segment between two anastomoses, unless the surgeon can resect a previous anastomosis in the repeat procedure. Nonresectional procedures such as the Delorme's procedure should be strongly considered in the management of recurrent rectal prolapse if a resectional procedure was performed initially and failed.
Authors: Shelley Reynolds Hill; Peter F Ehrlich; Barbara Felt; Dawn Dore-Stites; Kim Erickson; Daniel H Teitelbaum Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 1.827