Full-thickness Rectal Prolapse Research Articles

Comparative study of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus perineal stapler resection for external full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients: enhanced outcomes and reduced recurrence rates—a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundIn elderly patients with external full-thickness rectal prolapse (EFTRP), the exact differences in postoperative recurrence and functional outcomes between laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) and perineal stapler resection (PSR) have not yet been investigated.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective multicenter study on 330 elderly patients divided into LVMR group (n = 250) and PSR (n = 80) from April 2012 to April 2019. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery by Wexner incontinence scale, Altomare constipation scale, and patient satisfaction questionnaire. The primary outcomes were incidence and risk factors for EFTRP recurrence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative incontinence, constipation, and patient satisfaction.ResultsLVMR was associated with fewer postoperative complications (p < 0.001), lower prolapse recurrence (p < 0.001), lower Wexner incontinence score (p = 0.03), and lower Altomare’s score (p = 0.047). Furthermore, LVMR demonstrated a significantly higher surgery–recurrence interval (p < 0.001), incontinence improvement (p = 0.019), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) than PSR. Three and 13 patients developed new symptoms in LVMR and PSR, respectively. The predictors for prolapse recurrence were LVMR (associated with 93% risk reduction of recurrence, OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.03–0.347, p = 0.001), symptom duration (prolonged duration was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, OR 1.131, 95% CI 1.036–1.236, p = 0.006), and length of prolapse (increased length was associated with a high recurrence risk (OR = 1.407, 95% CI = 1.197–1.655, p < 0.001).ConclusionsLVMR is safe for EFTRP treatment in elderly patients with low recurrence, and improved postoperative functional outcomes.Trial registrationClinical Trial.gov (NCT05915936), retrospectively registered on June 14, 2023.

Ventral mesh rectopexy for recurrent rectal prolapse after Altemeier perineal proctosigmoidectomy: feasibility and outcomes

PurposeRecurrence of rectal prolapse following the Altemeier procedure is reported with rates up to 40%. The optimal surgical management of recurrences has limited data available. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a favored procedure for primary rectal prolapse, but its role in managing recurrences after Altemeier is unclear. VMR for recurrent prolapse involves implanting the mesh on the colon, which has a thinner wall, more active peristalsis, no mesorectum, less peritoneum available for covering the mesh, and potential diverticula. These factors can affect mesh-related complications such as erosion, migration, or infection. This study assessed the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of VMR for recurrent rectal prolapse after the Altemeier procedure.MethodsWe queried our prospectively maintained database between 01/01/2008 and 06/30/2022 for patients who had experienced a recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse following Altemeier’s perineal proctosigmoidectomy and subsequently underwent ventral mesh rectopexy.ResultsTen women with a median age of 67 years (range 61) and a median BMI of 27.8 kg/m2 (range 9) were included. Five (50%) had only one Altemeier, and five (50%) had multiple rectal prolapse surgeries, including Altemeier before VMR. No mesh-related complications occurred during a 65-month (range 165) median follow-up period. Three patients (30%) experienced minor postoperative complications unrelated to the mesh. Long-term complications were chronic abdominal pain and incisional hernia in one patient, respectively. One out of five (20%) patients with only one previous prolapse repair had a recurrence, while all patients (100%) with multiple prior repairs recurred.ConclusionMesh implantation on the colon is possible without adverse reactions. However, high recurrence rates in patients with multiple previous surgeries raise doubts about using VMR for secondary or tertiary recurrences.

The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse

ObjectiveThere is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The aim of this international survey was to assess the patterns in treatment of...

Altemeier's Procedure for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse.

Altemeier's Procedure for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse.

A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse.

Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse can be undertaken via an abdominal or a perineal approach. The present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of different abdominal and perineal procedures for rectal prolapse in terms of recurrence, complications, and improvement in fecal incontinence (FI). A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized clinical trials comparing two or more procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROB-2 tool. The main outcomes were recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse, complications, operation time, and improvement in FI. Nine randomized controlled trials with 728 patients were included. The follow-up ranged between 12 and 47months. Posterior mesh rectopexy had significantly lower odds of recurrence than did the Altemeier procedure (logOR, - 12.75; 95% credible intervals, - 40.91, - 1.75), Delorme procedure (- 13.10; - 41.26, - 2.09), resection rectopexy (- 11.98; - 41.36, - 0.19), sponge rectopexy (- 13.19; - 42.87, - 0.54), and sutured rectopexy (- 13.12; - 42.58, - 1.50), but similar odds to ventral mesh rectopexy (- 12.09; - 41.7, 0.03). Differences among the procedures in complications, operation time, and improvement in FI were not significant. Posterior mesh rectopexy ranked best with the lowest recurrence while perineal procedures ranked worst with the highest recurrence rates.

How to do a Delorme's sleeve mucosectomy and muscular plication for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Here, we offer a step-by-step description of the technique for a Delorme's mucosectomy and muscular plication in our favoured prone jack-knife position, which is our preferred approach in patients who are frail, and unable to tolerate the pneumoperitoneum required for minimally invasive surgery. The principles of this technique are to reduce the prolapse, relieve incontinence and prevent obstructive defecation. This article is supplemented by a series of high-quality clinical images.

AN EVALUATION OF CLINICAL OUTCOMES AFTER ABDOMINAL MESH RECTOPEXY &amp; DELORME'S PROCEDURE FOR RECTAL PROLAPSE AT TERTIARY HEALTH CARE CENTER

Background: Rectal prolapse is protrusion of rectum through anal canal, and proccidentia ~ complete prolapse is the term used when full thickness rectal wall prolapse . 30 patients presenting with Materials and methods: mass per rectum were evaluated &amp; diagnosed clinically as having rectal prolapse were included in the study. The recurrence rate for the abdominal mesh Results: rectopexy is considered to be lower than Perineal Delorme's procedure. There was no recurrence in the rectopexy group. There was 1 recurrence (10%) in Delorme's group. .Better outcomes achieved when treatment individualized to Conclusion: each patient. Abdominal rectopexy for patients who can tolerate laparotomy &amp; signicant constipation. .Delorme's considered in young patients with short prolapse but with acceptable recurrence rate.

A comparison of perineal stapled prolapse resection and the Altemeier procedure at 2 Canadian academic hospitals.

The preferred perineal repair method for full-thickness rectal prolapse is the Altemeier procedure, a perineal proctosigmoidectomy with handsewn anastomosis. A recently described variant of this procedure combines the resection and anastomosis into 1 step by means of linear and transverse stapling. There are few published data comparing the characteristics and outcomes of these 2 approaches. This retrospective review, performed at 2 Canadian academic hospitals, compares surgical and cost outcomes between the perineal stapled prolapse resection (PSPR) and the Altemeier procedure. All patients who underwent these procedures between 2015 and 2019 were included. There were 25 patients in the PSPR group and 19 in the Altemeier group. Patients in the PSPR group were significantly older than those in the Altemeier group (81 [95% confidence interval (CI) 70-92] yr v. 74 [95% CI 63-85] yr; p = 0.047), had a lower body mass index (21.4 [95% CI 17.7-25.1] v. 24.4 [95% CI 18.5-30.3]; p = 0.042) and had equivalent American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (2.84 [95% CI 2.09-3.59] v. 2.68 [95% CI 1.93-3.43]; p = 0.49). The operative time for PSPR was significantly less (30.3 [95% CI 16.3-44.3] min v. 67 [95% CI 43-91] min; p < 0.001), as were the operative costs. Recurrence (28.0% v. 36.8%; p = 0.53) and complication rates were equivalent. PSPR is a safe, efficient and effective approach to perineal proctosigmoidectomy. It is associated with surgical outcomes comparable to those of the Altemeier procedure, but with a significant reduction in operative time and cost.

Management of full thickness rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse occurs when the rectum invaginates and descends into the anal canal or beyond the anal sphincter muscles. Patients often report fecal incontinence, obstructed defecation, pain, and urgency and of patients who present with rectal prolapse, up to 30% will also have anterior or middle compartment prolapse. This review describes the preoperative management of patients with rectal prolapse and principles for determining the operative approach.All patients should be optimized ahead of surgery with attention to bowel habits, pelvic floor strength and coordination, and baseline nutrition and fitness. If multi-compartment prolapse is identified, those patients should be referred for multidisciplinary management. Determining the best operation for an individual patient is best done through a shared decision-making model weighing the risks and benefits of abdominal versus perineal operations. Many patients can tolerate minimally invasive abdominal operations, but for those who cannot, perineal operations are a safe and effective option.

Altemeier’s Procedure, an Easy Solution for Rectal Prolapse

Introduction: Rectal prolapse is an embarrassing clinical condition. Most of the time patients get emergency hospital admission. Full thickness rectal prolapse demands surgical treatment. Many surgical procedures and techniques were described but none is adopted as standard. It is challenging to choose appropriate surgical procedure in the emergency situations as many patients come after trial of reduction and maltreatment. We have treated 64 patients of full thickness rectal prolapse by Altemeier’s procedure in emergency admissions. This study was designed to observe the outcomes of Altemeier’s procedure (perineal proctosigmoidectomy) in full thickness rectal prolapse as emergency surgery. Methods: This prospective study was done in Dhaka Medical College Hospital and Cumilla Medical College Hospital over the period of January 2013 to July 2018. Total 64 patients were included in this study. Alteimer’s procedure was done in all patients. Patients were followed up on 2 weeks, 1 month, 3months, 6 months and 1 year. Patients were evaluated by complain of pain, per rectal bleeding, mucous discharge, bowel movement and incontinence. Postoperative data was collected and evaluated. Results: Reduction was achieved in all patients and they were satisfied about their prolapse correction. Two patients needed blood transfusion and laparotomy. Anastomotic disruption and bleeding from the mesenteric vessels were found on laparotomy. All patients had improved evacuation as assessed by history of satisfactory evacuation. No recurrence was reported during the follow up period. Gas and liquid incontinence were noted in 3 patients who improved with sphincter exercise within 3 months. Conclusion: In our series, we found Altemeier’s procedure is safe, effective for complete rectal prolapse specially in emergency situation and can be done under regional anesthesia. J Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg 2022; 40: 229-232

A Case of Robotic Posterior Rectopexy for Full-thickness Rectal Prolapse.

We describe our experience with robotic posterior rectopexy for a patient with full-thickness rectal prolapse. To our knowledge, this is the first report of such a case in the literature. A 94-year-old woman presented with a history of gradually worsening rectal prolapse. On examination, we found that the rectum was completely prolapsed, and we observed a prolapsed intestinal tract. Surgery was indicated and robotic rectopexy was performed without intraoperative complications. The postoperative course was uneventful, and she was discharged 10 days after the operation. One year later, there were no signs of recurrence. Robotic surgery has become common in recent years. We used robotic surgery for rectopexy, including the suturing procedure. Suturing in robotic surgery is easier than that in laparoscopic surgery, and we demonstrated that robotic rectopexy could be safely and easily performed. The trial was registered in the UMIN clinical trial registry (number 000040378).

Transanal rectopexy for external rectal prolapse.

The surgical management of patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) continues to remain a challenge in the laparoscopic era. This study retrospectively assesses a cohort of patients undergoing a transanal suture sacro rectopexy supported by sclerosant injection into the presacral space under ultrasound guidance. Patients with FTRP underwent a sutured transrectal presacral fixation of 2/3 of the circumference of the rectum from the third sacral vertebra to the sacrococcygeal junction through a side-viewing operating proctoscope. The procedure was supplemented by ultrasound-guided injection into the retrorectal space of a 2 mL solution of sodium tetradecyl sulfate/polidocanol mixed with air. Patients were functionally assessed before and 6 months after surgery with the Agachan constipation score and the Pescatori incontinence score. There were 36 adult patients (26 males; the range of age, 23-92 years). The mean operative time was 27 minutes (range, 23-50 minutes) with no recorded perioperative morbidity. The median follow-up was 66 months (range, 48-84 months) with 1 (2.8%) recurrence presenting 18 months after surgery. There were 19 patients (52.8%) who presented with incontinence before surgery with 17 out of 19 (89.5%) reporting improvement in their Pescatori score (P<0.001). No patient had worsening incontinence and there were no de novo incontinence cases. Constipation scores improved in 23 out of 36 patients (63.9%) with a mean score reduction difference of 7.91 (P=0.001). Transanal sutured sacral rectopexy with supplemental presacral sclerosant injection is safe and effective in the management of FTRP with sustained improvement in bowel function.

Transanal evisceration in a patient with rectal perforation and full thickness rectal prolapse: what has prolapsed into what?

Transanal evisceration in a patient with rectal perforation and full thickness rectal prolapse: what has prolapsed into what?

Long term outcomes of laparoscopic sacro/colpo-hysteropexy with and without rectopexy for the treatment of prolapse.

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH), sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and ventral rectopexy (LVR) with mesh are advocated for surgical treatment of pelvic and rectal prolapse. Our study aims at showing the feasibility of concomitant laparoscopic prolapse repair by comparing perioperative and long-term outcomes of LSH or LSC with and without LVR. This is a retrospective study carried out on 348 women operated on between July 2009 and July 2019. Patients were divided into four groups: (1) LSH only, (2) LSC only, (3) LSH + LVR and (4) LSC + LVR. POP-Q scores and satisfaction questionnaires were recorded at baseline and then annually. Outcomes were defined as subjective failure (vaginal/rectal prolapse symptoms), objective failure (prolapse to/beyond the hymen, full thickness rectal prolapse) or retreatment for prolapse. Complications were collected and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Three hundred forty-eight women underwent laparoscopic repair for pelvic and rectal prolapse (219, 44, 66 and 19 in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 (4-174)months. Success rate for both rectal and pelvic prolapse was 90.2%. Recurrence rates were not significantly different between the groups (12.3%, 6.8%, 9.1% and 10.5% for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Significant improvement was noticed in satisfaction questionnaires in all groups. There was no difference in perioperative and late complications. The combined laparoscopic procedure appears to be safe and efficient in treating pelvic and rectal prolapse. Appropriate patient selection and available surgical expertise should determine whether to perform these procedures combined or separately.

A new modified Gant-Miwa-Thiersch combined with submucosal and perirectal sclerosant injection procedure for full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly women: clinical analysis of 34 cases

BackgroundFull-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) frequently occurs in elderly women, and more than 100 surgical procedures have been proposed to restore FTRP. The Gant-Miwa-Thiersch (GMT) procedure is the most used treatment in China. However, the recurrence rate of FTRP post-GMT, which is as high as 23.8%, is concerning. We described a new modified GMT combined with internal and external rectal sclerosant injection (nmGMTSI) procedure to address this problem.MethodsThe nmGMTSI was performed under spinal anesthesia in 34 frail, elderly female patients with FTRP. The surgical results of FTRP were assessed. Fecal incontinence and constipation were evaluated using the Wexner score, and anal canal rest pressure (ACRP), maximum anal systolic pressure (MASP), anorectal sensation thresholds (AST), and maximum rectal tolerance (MRT) using anorectal manometry preoperatively and postoperatively. The causes of recurrence and complications were analyzed.ResultsAll patients were cured according to the clinical cure standard. The perioperative Wexner fecal incontinence score (WFIS) was 10.3 ± 3.31, which became 3.7 ± 2.43 (P < 0.0001) postoperatively. The perioperative ACRP was 2.0 ± 0.56 kPa, which became 8.5 ± 2.25 kPa (P < 0.0001) postoperatively. The perioperative MASP was 4.5 ± 1.16 kPa, which became 18.6 ± 2.50 kPa (P < 0.0001) postoperatively. However, no significant difference was observed between the preoperative and postoperative Wexner constipation scores (WCS) (17.3 ± 2.25 vs. 15.4 ± 2.89, P = 0.1047). The perioperative and postoperative AST were 38.1 ± 5.34 mL and 23.5 ± 3.61 mL, respectively (P = 0.0002). The maximum rectal tolerance (MRT) was 157.1 ± 16.73 mL, which became 121.2 ± 12.45 mL postoperatively (P = 0.0009). The patients developed no serious postoperative complications. The total relapse rate after nmGMTSI was 2.9% in the median two years follow-up period. The most common cause of relapse after nmGMTSI was the removal of infected threads used in the Thiersch procedure.ConclusionThe benefits of nmGMTSI include low rates of recurrence, complications, and mortality, cost-effectiveness, wide adaptation, minimal invasiveness, and technical simplicity. Hence, it should be considered the first option for the treatment of FTRP in frail elderly women.

An emergency Altemeier procedure for necrosis of full-thickness rectal prolapse.

An emergency Altemeier procedure for necrosis of full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IntroductionMost of the patients with rectal prolapse complain of fecal incontinence followed by constipation. Surgery is the only definitive treatment option for rectal prolapse. There are two approaches: either transanal/perineal or transabdominal. The abdominal procedures can be done in the open laparotomy method or laparoscopically. Suture rectopexy is a very old and popular method of treating rectal prolapse. Nowadays, rectopexy by laparoscopic approach is considered the gold standard treatment for rectal prolapse. The study has been conducted to compare both the procedures and their outcomes in terms of conditions associated with rectal prolapse.MethodsAll consecutive patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse who had attended the surgery outpatient department were included in the study. The patients had undergone either open suture rectopexy or laparoscopic rectopexy after randomization. Assessment of postoperative pain, mean days of hospital stay, constipation, and incontinence score along with operative time, recurrence within six months of follow-up, and time to resume bowel activity were done. The patients were followed up for 18 months at regular intervals.ResultsA total of 58 patients were included in the study: 27 in the open group and 31 in the laparoscopic group. The operative time was 102 minutes versus 129 minutes (p=0.0001) in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The laparoscopic group had an earlier resumption of bowel activity (3.1 days vs. 1.4 days [p=0.0001]); fewer days of hospital stay (6.8 days vs. 2.5 days [p=0.0001]), less postoperative pain (mean visual analogue scale score for pain on postoperative day one 4.0 versus 3.1 [p=0.0035] and on postoperative day two 3.8 versus 2.2 [p=0.0001]). There was no significant difference in postoperative constipation score and incontinence score between the two groups.ConclusionLaparoscopic rectopexy results in lesser postoperative pain, lesser hospital stay, and better patient satisfaction than open rectopexy.

Laparoscopic approach to recurrence following multiple surgeries for external rectal prolapse: a case report

IntroductionThe optimal procedure for recurrent external rectal prolapse remains unclear, particularly in laparoscopic approach. In addition, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is sometimes concomitant with rectal prolapse. We present a case who underwent laparoscopic procedure for the recurrence of full-thickness external rectal prolapse coexisting POP.Case presentationAn 81-year-old parous female had a 10-cm full-thickness external rectal prolapse following the two operations: the first was perineal recto-sigmoidectomy and the second was laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. Imaging study revealed that the recurrent rectal prolapse was concomitant with both cystocele and exposed vagina, what we call POP. We planned and successfully performed laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) using self-cut meshes without any perioperative complication.ConclusionThis is the first report of LVMR and LSC for recurrent rectal prolapse with POP following the perineal recto-sigmoidectomy and laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. Even for recurrent rectal prolapse with POP, our experience suggests that LVMR and LSC could be utilized.

Rectal Prolapse: Age-Related Differences in Clinical Presentation and What Bothers Women Most.

Rectal prolapse has a diverse symptom profile that affects patients of all ages. We sought to identify bothersome symptoms and clinical presentation that motivated patients who have rectal prolapse to seek care, characterize differences in symptom severity with age, and determine factors associated with bothersome symptoms. This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained registry. This study was conducted at a tertiary referral academic center. Included were 129 consecutive women with full-thickness rectal prolapse. The main outcomes measured were primary bothersome symptoms, 5-item Cleveland Clinic/Wexner Fecal Incontinence questionnaire, and the 5-item Obstructed Defecation Syndrome questionnaire. Patients were categorized by age <65 vs age ≥65 years. Cleveland Clinic/Wexner Fecal Incontinence score >9 was more common in older patients (87% vs 60%, p = 0.002). Obstructed Defecation Syndrome score >8 was more common in younger patients (57% vs 28%, p < 0.001). Older patients were more likely than younger patients to report bothersome symptoms of pain (38% vs 19%, p = 0.021) and bleeding (12% vs 2%, p = 0.046). Mucus discharge was reported by most patients (older, 72% vs younger, 66%, p = 0.54) but was bothersome for only 18%, regardless of age. Older patients had more severe prolapse expression than younger patients (at rest, 33% vs 11%; during activity, 26% vs 19%; only with defecation, 40% vs 64%, p = 0.006). Older patients were more likely to seek care within 6 months of prolapse onset (29% vs 11%, p = 0.056). On multivariable regression, increasing age, narcotic use, and nonprotracting prolapse at rest were associated with reporting pain as a primary concern. This was a single-center study with a small sample size. Rectal prolapse-related bothersome symptoms and health care utilization differ by age. Although rectal pain is often not commonly associated with prolapse, it bothers many women and motivates older women to undergo evaluation. Patient-reported functional questionnaires may not reflect patients' primary concerns regarding specific symptoms and could benefit from supplementation with questionnaires to elicit individualized symptom priorities. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B492. INFLUENCIA DE LA EDAD EN DIFERENCIAS VINCULADAS CON LA PRESENTACIÓN CLÍNICA Y LOS SÍNTOMAS MAS DESAGRADABLES: El prolapso de recto tiene una gran variedad de síntomas que afectan a pacientes con edades diferentes.Identificar los síntomas mas molestos y la presentación clínica que motivaron a los pacientes con un prolapso de recto a consultar por atención médica, caracterizar las diferencias de gravedad de los síntomas con relación a la edad y determinar los factores asociados con los síntomas mas molestos.Análisis retrospectivo de un registro prospectivo.Centro académico de referencia terciaria.Consecutivamente 129 mujeres que presentaban un prolapso rectal completo.Síntomas y molestias primarias, cuestionario de incontinencia fecal de la Cleveland Clinic / Wexner de 5 ítems, cuestionario de síndrome de defecación obstruida de 5 ítems. Los pacientes fueron categorizados en < 65 años versus ≥ 65 años.El puntaje de incontinencia fecal de la Cleveland Clinic / Wexner > 9 fue más común en pacientes mayores (87% vs 60%, p = 0.002). La puntuación del síndrome de defecación obstructiva > 8 fue más común en pacientes más jóvenes (57% vs 28%, p <0,001). Los pacientes mayores fueron más propensos que los pacientes jóvenes a informar síntomas y molestias de dolor (38% vs 19%, p = 0.021) y sangrado (12% vs 2%, p = 0.046). La mayoría de los pacientes informaron secresión de moco (mayores, 72% frente a más jóvenes, 66%, p = 0,54), pero sólo el 18% tuvo molestias, independientemente de la edad. Los pacientes mayores tenían una exteriorización de prolapso más grave que los pacientes jóvenes (en reposo, 33% frente a 11%; durante la actividad, 26% frente a 19%; solo con defecación, 40% frente a 64%, p = 0,006). Los pacientes mayores tenían más probabilidades de buscar atención médica dentro de los 6 meses posteriores al inicio del prolapso (29% frente a 11%, p = 0.056). Tras la regresión multivariable, el aumento de la edad, el uso de narcóticos y el prolapso no prolongado en reposo se asociaron con la notificación de dolor como queja principal.Centro único; tamaño de muestra pequeño.Los síntomas y molestias relacionadas con el prolapso rectal y la solicitud de atención médica difieren según la edad. Aunque el dolor rectal a menudo no se asocia comúnmente con el prolapso, incomoda a muchas pacientes y motiva a las mujeres mayores a someterse a un examen médico. Los cuestionarios funcionales con las respuestas de las pacientes pueden no reflejar las preocupaciones principales de éstos con respecto a los síntomas específicos y podrían requerir cuestionarios complementarios para así obtener prioridades individualizadas con relación a los síntomas identificados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B492. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

How to do an Altemeier perineal rectosigmoidectomy for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Here, we offer a step-by-step description of the technique for an Altemeier perineal rectosigmoidectomy, which is our institution's preferred perineal approach for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. This article is supplemented by a series of high-quality clinical images that are available in FigsS1-S11. The principles of this technique are to excise the rectal prolapse and improve structural support of the pelvic floor.