Search

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.

Purpose: To assess our institution's ability to minimize local and distant recurrence with a preference for sphincter preserving surgery in the management of rectal cancer., Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients treated between 1982 and 1998. Patients with Stage 0 (AJCC) disease and those treated for palliation were not included. Clinical and pathologic stage, operation type, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, and survival were compared. Kaplan-Meier analysis was also performed., Results: Rectal cancer was identified in 332 patients (mean follow-up: 5.5 years). One hundred and seventy-three patients (52.1%) underwent low anterior resection, while 107 patients (32.2%) required abdominoperineal resection, 6 patients (1.8%) required exenteration to control disease, and 46 (13.9%) patients were treated with local excision. Of the 332 patients, 63 (19.0%) received adjuvant radiotherapy alone, 85 (25.6%) received combination chemoradiotherapy, and 4 (1.2%) received chemotherapy. Sphincter preserving procedures were used more frequently in the later half of the experience. Local/regional recurrences occurred in 5 patients (3.3%) treated with adjuvant therapy, and in 16 patients (8.9% of total) who did not receive adjuvant therapy (p=0.02, Chi-square test) although the total risk of recurrence (local and/or distant) was not different (30.2% vs. 27.7%, p=0.54). The actuarial rate of local recurrence (regardless of adjuvant therapy) for all stages was 7% at 5 years, and the risk of any recurrence (local or distant) was 21.1% at 5 years. Cancer specific 5-year survival was 77% overall., Conclusions: In rectal cancer, the therapeutic objectives are to control disease, limit recurrence, and preserve sphincter function; these goals were met for many patients at this institution. These data compare favorably with the current literature. Careful surgical technique and adjuvant therapy can allow successful treatment, even of advanced rectal cancers.