[Rectal prolapse in adults--causes, diagnostic, treatment].
Despite progress in modern surgery, the choice of the surgical procedure of rectal prolapse is regarded with controversy. Selection criteria between the abdominal or perineal approach or between rectopexy and resection rectopexy are not yet proven. This article gives a review of the literature about rectal prolapse and an analysis of the outcome of posterior rectopexy and resection rectopexy--partly conventionally and partly laparoscopically--in 25 patients with rectal prolapse III degrees and IV degrees. All except for one patient were examined during a mean follow-up of 5.5 (3.1) years for the rectopexy group and 2.1 (0.7) years for the resection rectopexy group. Recurrence occurred in one patient in each group respectively. There was no significant difference concerning the continence function (p = 0.32) and constipation (p = 0.36) between both groups. No mesh-related complications such as infection, fistula or rectum stenosis were observed. According to the review of the literature and our data, we believe that the choice of the operative procedure for rectal prolapse should be based on individual criteria. Fit patients should be offered laparoscopic procedures such as resection rectopexy and rectopexy without colonic resection.
Korenkov
M
M
Klinik und Poliklinik für Allgemein- und Abdominalchirurgie, Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany. korenkov@ach.klinik.uni-mainz.de
Junginger
T
T
D000328:Adult; D003248:Constipation / Q000209:etiology; D005242:Fecal Incontinence / Q000209:etiology; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology; D012005:Rectal Prolapse / Q000145:classification / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology / Q000601:surgery*; D012007:Rectum / Q000601:surgery