Complete rectal prolapse: evolution of management and results

Optional treatment for complete rectal prolapse remains controversial.

We reviewed our experience over a 19-year period to assess trends in choice of operation, recurrence rates, and functional results.

We identified 372 patients who underwent surgery for complete rectal prolapse between 1976 and 1994. Charts were reviewed and follow-up (median, 64: range, 12-231 months) was obtained by mailed questionnaire (149 patients; 40 percent) and telephone interview (35 patients; 9 percent). Functional results were obtained from 184 responders (49 percent).

Median age of patients was 64 (11-100) years, and females outnumbered males by nine to one. One-hundred and eighty-eight patients (51 percent) were lost to follow-up; 183 patients (49 percent) underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy, and 161 patients (43 percent) underwent abdominal rectopexy with bowel resection. The percentage of patients who underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy increased from 22 percent in the first five years of the study to 79 percent in the most recent five years. Patients undergoing perineal rectosigmoidectomy were more likely to have associated medical problems as compared with patients undergoing abdominal rectopexy (61 vs. 30 percent, P = 0.00001). There was no significant difference in morbidity, with 14 percent for perineal rectosigmoidectomy vs. 20 percent for abdominal rectopexy. Abdominal procedures were associated with a longer length of stay as compared with perineal rectosigmoidectomy (8 vs. 5 days, P = 0.001). Perineal procedures, however, had a higher recurrence rate (16 vs. 5 percent, P = 0.002). Functional improvement was not significantly different, and most patients were satisfied with treatment and outcome.

We conclude that abdominal rectopexy with bowel resection is associated with low recurrence rates. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy provides lower morbidity and shorter length of stay, but recurrence rates are much higher. Despite this, perineal rectosigmoidectomy has appeal as a lesser procedure for elderly patients or those patients in the high surgical risk category. For younger patients, the benefits of perineal rectosigmoidectomy being a lesser procedure must be weighed against a higher recurrence rate.Patient satisfaction]