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.