Rectal prolapse: a 10-year experience.

PURPOSE

To compare perineal to abdominal procedures for rectal prolapse over a 10-year period at a single tertiary care institution.

METHODS

Between May 1, 1995, and January 1, 2005, 75 patients underwent surgical intervention for primary rectal prolapse at a tertiary referral center. Surgical techniques included perineal-based repairs (Altemeier and Delorme procedures) and abdominal procedures (open and laparoscopic resection and/or rectopexy). Medical records were abstracted for data pertaining to patient characteristics, signs and symptoms at presentation, surgical procedure, postoperative length of hospitalization, morbidity and mortality, and recurrence of rectal prolapse.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients underwent surgical intervention for rectal prolapse during the study period. The average patient age was 60.8 years. Sixty-two patients (82.7%) underwent perineal-based repair (Altemeier n = 48, Delorme n = 14); eight patients (10.7%) underwent open abdominal procedures (resection and rectopexy n = 4, rectopexy only n = 4); and five patients (6.7%) underwent laparoscopic repair (laparoscopic LAR n = 3, laparoscopic resection and rectopexy n = 2). Average hospitalization was shorter with perineal procedures (2.6 days) than with abdominal procedures (4.8 days) (p < 0.0031). Postoperative complications were observed in 13.3% of cases. With a median follow-up of 39 months (range 6-123 months), there was no mortality for primary repair, a postoperative morbidity occurred in 13% of patients, and the overall rate of recurrent prolapse was 16% (16.1% for perineal-based repairs, 15.4% for abdominal procedures).

CONCLUSION

Perineal resections were more common, performed in significantly older patients, and resulted in a shorter hospital stay. Their minimal morbidity and similar recurrence rates make perineal procedures the preferred option.