Surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse: A survey of the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA)

Abstract

IntroductionMany management options exist for the treatment of refractory rectal prolapse (RP) in children. Our goal was to characterize current practice patterns among active members of APSA. MethodsA 23-item questionnaire assessed the management of full-thickness RP for healthy children who have failed medical management. The survey was approved by our IRB and by the APSA Outcomes committee. Results236 surgeons participated. The respondents were geographically dispersed (44 states, 5 provinces). 32% of respondents had twenty or more years of clinical experience. 71% evaluated 1–5 RP patients in the last 2 years, while 5% evaluated >10. 71% performed 0–1 procedure (operation or local therapy [LT]) for RP over 2 years. 59% would treat a 2-year-old patient differently than a 6-year-old with the same presentation, and were more likely to offer up-front surgery to a 6-year-old (26% vs 15%, p = 0.04), less likely to continue medical management indefinitely (2% vs 7%, p=0.01), and more likely to perform resection with rectopexy (30% vs. 15%, p=0.01). 71% perform LT as an initial intervention: injection sclerotherapy (59%), anal encirclement (8%), and sclerotherapy + anal encirclement (5%). 70% consider LT a failure after 1–3 attempts. If LT fails, surgical management consists of transabdominal rectopexy (46%), perineal proctectomy or proctosigmoidectomy (22%), transabdominal sigmoidectomy + rectopexy (22%), and posterior sagittal rectopexy (9%). ConclusionsThere is wide variability in the surgical management of pediatric rectal prolapse. This suggests a need for development of processes to identify best practices and optimize outcomes for this condition.