You are in Home >> Outcome/results

Lap Ventral Rectopexy fo patients >80 years

 border=Email this page
 

02/08/2009

LAPAROSCOPIC VENTRAL RECTOPEXY FOR EXTERNAL RECTAL PROLAPSE IS VERY SAFE IN THE ELDERLY, PERINEAL PROCEDURES ARE ALMOST OBSOLETE: TIME FOR RE-APPRAISAL OF A CLASSIC ALGORITHM.

Wijffels N, Cunningham C, Dixon A*, Greenslade G**, Lindsey I.

Pelvic Floor Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford and

Departments of Colorectal Surgery and Anaesthetics**, Frenchay Hospital, Bristol*

Address for correspondence

lindseyilinz@yahoo.com


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Perineal procedures, despite high recurrence rates and poor resolution of incontinence, are generally recommended for external rectal prolapse in the elderly for safety. Abdominal rectopexy has lower recurrence but performed posteriorly frequently induces constipation. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) improves existing and avoids inducing new-onset constipation and its minimal invasiveness allows tolerability in the elderly. We aimed to assess results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in elderly patients with external rectal prolapse.

Methods: Data on LVR for patients over eighty with external rectal prolapse in two tertiary colorectal pelvic floor centres (Oxford and Bristol) were collected prospectively and analysed. End-points were mortality, morbidity, length of stay. A subgroup was analysed for change in bowel function (Wexner constipation score and Faecal Incontinence Severity Index).

Results: 80 patients (98% female, median age 84, range 80-97 years, mean ASA grade 2.44 [s.d. 0.57]) underwent LVR, 44 in Oxford and 36 in Bristol, 33 (41%) with recurrent rectal prolapse. 30-day mortality (0%), morbidity (11%), hospital stay (2 days) and recurrence (2%) was acceptably low.

Discussion: LVR combines the low morbidity of a perineal procedure with the low recurrence of an abdominal approach, without worsening or inducing new constipation. LVR can be offered to all fit patients with external rectal prolapse, regardless of age, perineal procedures should be restricted to the very frail and are thus almost obsolete. The classical algorithm for treatment of external rectal prolapse needs reappraisal.

BACKGROUND

External rectal prolapse (ERP) is defined as a circumferential, full thickness intussusception of the rectal wall with protrusion beyond the anal canal1. It can be a debilitating condition, causing pain, bleeding, ulceration, severe constipation (25-50%), or faecal incontinence (75%). The impact of this condition to the patients’ quality of life is considerable. The goals of treatment are to correct the prolapse by restoring anatomy while improving function by restoring continence, and improving evacuation2,3.

Numerous operative strategies have been described, indicating an ongoing search for the ideal surgical approach2. The techniques used are categorized into perineal and trans-abdominal procedures. The latter are known to have much lower long-term recurrences and better recovery of continence4,5,20 at the expense of higher morbidity. Perineal procedures therefore are often performed on elderly patients with often high co-morbidities who are not considered fit enough for abdominal surgery. Higher recurrence rates (pooled published series 18%) and poorer functional results with unpredictable recovery of continence4,5,20 are accepted as a trade-off.

The introduction of laparoscopic approaches to prolapse surgery have challenged the classical view of how to treat patients with full-thickness external prolapse. Since these have in general been adaptations of classical open procedures, recurrence rates (<5%) and functional results are comparable to open trans-abdominal operations6-16. A laparoscopic approach is associated with lower costs through a reduction in hospital stay and faster patient recovery. More importantly, it is associated with a significant reduction in morbidity6,17-20. This has lead necessarily to a reappraisal of the traditional trade off between perineal and trans-abdominal procedures.

More recently, autonomic nerve-sparing anterior or ventral rectopexy has been shown to be a further advance. D’Hoore et al has described laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) treating 109 consecutive patients with external rectal prolapse 21,22. By creating a pocket at the level of the rectovaginal septum, ventrally to the rectal wall, dissection is kept at a minimum. Apart from avoiding classical posterior rectal dissection and rectal denervation by sparing the lateral ligaments, morbidity is shown to be low. The reproducibility of these excellent results with this technique has been shown by ourselves23,24

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate mortality and morbidity in elderly patients with full thickness external rectal prolapse, a group traditionally managed by perineal approaches.. Secondary aims were to assess length of hospital stay and rate of recurrent full-thickness external rectal prolapse. We aimed to compare the primary and secondary outcome measures to those published in perineal procedures for rectal prolapse.

METHODS

Between January 2002 and December 2008, 80 patients with a full thickness external rectal prolapse 80 years of age or older, were operated on in two different centres with tertiary referral pelvic floor expertise (Churchill Hospital, Oxford and Frenchay Hospital, Bristol). The diagnosis of full-thickness external rectal prolapse was made clinically, or when suspected, confirmed on defaecation proctography. Patients underwent preoperative colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy to exclude organic disease.

Surgical technique

The technique of LVR has been well described21,22,23. Peri-operatively prophylactic iv-antibiotics are administered, either a combination Co-amoxiclav or Gentamicin and Metronidazole. The patients are positioned in Lloyd-Davies with hip flexion. A 30-degree laparoscope is placed in the umbilical tube. Right iliac fossa 10mm and 5mm operating ports are inserted; a 5mm suprapubic port is optional. If present, the uterus is either hitched to the anterior abdominal wall using 2/0 silk on a straight needle or elevated by a Spakman retractor. A superficial peritoneal window is made using a hook dissector with monopolar diathermy to the right of the sacral promontory and extended caudally over the right outer border of the mesorectum down towards the right side of the deep Douglas pouch. This approach spares the right hypogastric nerve (deeper), ureter (more lateral) and avoids mobilisation of the mesorectum. At the deepest point of the right Douglas pouch the longitudinal incision is terminated. The peritoneum, posterior to the apex of the rectovaginal septum is grasped and retracted postero-cranially. A narrow Deaver retractor (or the Spakman retractor) placed in the vagina is retracted antero-caudally, with a force equal and opposite to the former. The areolar plane of the recto-vaginal septum opens with the first transverse peritoneal incision overlying the apex of the septum. A purely anterior rectal dissection is then undertaken in this areolar layer down to the pelvic floor (figure 1), the distal limit confirmed by digital rectal and vaginal examination.

A 3 x 20 cm strip of polypropylene or polyester mesh is introduced and positioned and sutured as distally as possible on the anterior rectum/perineal body. The mesh is sutured to the anterior wall of the rectum with interrupted non-resorbable sutures (Ethibond® Excel 00, Ethicon, Edingurgh, UK); the vaginal posterior wall is fixed with the same sutures and so creates a new rectovaginal septum. The mesh is secured to the sacral promontory using three Protack staples (Autosuture, Tyco Healthcare, Gosport, UK). If the vaginal wall is not fixed as described, the vaginal vault (or cervix) is fixed to the mesh without traction by two additional sutures. The mesh is then peritonealised by suturing the free edges of the previously divided peritoneum over the mesh with the same suture or 2-0 Vicryl (Ethicon, Edinburgh, UK); provides additional ventral elevation and avoids small bowel adhesion to the mesh.

Anaesthetic technique

General Anaesthesia is used with short acting opioids, intravenous propofol or inhalation agents. Administration of significant amounts of intravenous fluids is avoided. Apart from short acting opioids pain is controlled with intravenous paracetamol often combined with a transversus abdominal plane block (TAP block)54.

Data and statistical analysis

Data on gender, age, ASA classification, mortality, morbidity, length of stay and recurrence were prospectively collected on a institutionally approved electronic database. Non-parametric data were described as median and range and parametric data as average and standard deviation.

RESULTS

Patients

Between January 2002 and December 2008, 80 patients (median age 84 years, range 80-97 years), underwent LVR (figure 2). Average ASA grade 2.44 (sd +/- 0.57); I (2), II (42), III (35), IV (1). Seventy-eight (98%) were female. Thirty-six patients were operated in Bristol and 44 in Oxford. In the same period, four patients underwent perineal procedures. One Delorme’s procedure was performed on a demented elderly lady unconcerned about bowel function. One patient underwent Delorme’s preferentially because of fixed flexure contractions and two patients did so by surgeons other than the authors untrained in LVR.

Thirty-three patients were operated on for a recurrent rectal prolapse (28 Delorme’s procedure between 1 and 12 years earlier, 2 posterior rectopexy between 4 months and 9 years earlier, and 1 Altemeier’s resection). Eight patients (10%) had undergone two or more interventions.

Morbidity and Mortality

There was one (1%) major complication (inferior on-table myocardial infarction successfully paced) and 12 minor complications in 9 patients (11%) (table 1 & 2). There was no mortality. The most common complications were chest infection, port-site hernia and urinary tract infection. There were no mesh related complications i.e., infection, erosion or migration. There was one conversion (1%) for widespread abdominal and pelvic adhesions following a previous hysterectomy and a failed complicated open posterior rectopexy. A Pfannenstiel incision was utilised to take down the adhesions before closing and completing the LVR laparoscopically. This was complicated by wound infection for which the patient was readmitted.

Length of stay and recurrence

The median length of stay was 3 days (range 1-37 days). The median follow-up was 23 months (range 2-82 months). Six patients (all died from unrelated causes) were lost to follow-up. Two demented patients were discharged from follow-up at 6 months. Two (3%) patients developed a recurrent full thickness prolapse at 6 and 16 months. Both were re-operated, 1 by redo-LVR and the other by Delorme’s procedure. Three patients developed symptomatic recurrent/persistent mucosal prolapse, treated with an anopexy (2) and with a STARR procedure (1).

DISCUSSION

Perineal procedures have traditionally been considered the “gold standard” treatment of a full-thickness external rectal prolapse in elderly patients with often high co-morbidities where an invasive laparotomy is avoided. This does not mean however, that perineal procedures are without risk. Delorme’s rectal-mucosectomy has a morbidity of 12-14% and mortality 0-5% 3,25-35. Altemeier’s perineal rectosigmoidectomy has a similar risk of death (0-6%) and an even higher morbidity (5–25%)36-52. Whilst an Altemeier’s resection has better functional results than Delorme’s there is always a risk of an anastomotic leak.

Since its advent, laparoscopic surgery is gaining rapid popularity and momentum. A recent Cochrane Collaboration review concluded that laparoscopic rectopexy results in fewer postoperative complications and an earlier discharge53 over open methods. Other outcomes were similar in the open and laparoscopic groups, which imply that the advantages of abdominal approach apply to laparoscopic surgery. Although laparoscopic rectopexy has become popular it has as yet not been advocated in the “super elderly” who perhaps might be considered at increased risk from this approach.

Our experience would suggest that the laparoscopic approach needs re-evaluating. In this sizeable consecutive series of “super elderly” patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse there were no deaths and morbidity was very low with only one major complication, proof that LVR is a safe alternative. It is also very predictable with good functional outcomes 26,27,28 LVR despite its minimal dissection also has a very low recurrent prolapse rate compared to the 25-30% seen with perineal procedures5. D’Hoore reported that in a subgroup of 42 patients with a 5yr follow-up the recurrence rate was only 5% (2 patients). Our 3 % recurrence rate after a median 23-month follow-up is consistent with this figure.

A 30-degree laparoscope allows the surgeon to dissect the rectovaginal plane all the way down to the perineal body and the muscles of the pelvic floor (figure 1). The extent of this dissection can be checked during the procedure by performing a digital vaginal/rectal examination against an endoscopic instrument placed at the distal end of the dissection plane as a reference. We believe that a good fixation of the mesh to the ventral rectal wall, as distal (or caudal) as possible, is essential to minimize the risk of recurrence.

Although the ability to control a full thickness rectal prolapse with good functional results seem to be reproducible, it is very important to realise that the procedure does come with a learning curve. This particularly applies to the sometimes difficult distal fixation of the mesh to the anterior rectal wall. Our two recurrences occurred in the first 12 patients operated in Oxford.

In our two clinics LVR is offered to every patient despite their ASA grade. It must be stated that operating on these sometimes frail, elderly patients necessitates good anaesthetic care. Concerns regarding patients with moderate COPD developing pneumothorax have proven to be somewhat overstated, possibly because the lungs are splinted by the pneumoperitoneum, resulting in the transmural pressure difference being smaller than might otherwise be the case. The cardiac patients most likely to die suddenly at induction of anaesthesia mostly have aortic stenosis. Here, a drop in systemic vascular resistance can quickly translate into inadequate coronary artery perfusion as the diastolic arterial pressure falls. The same is true—to a lesser extent—in patients with ischaemic heart disease. With laparoscopic surgery in our institutions, the anaesthetist manages the patient’s cardiac afterload mostly by the administration of drugs such as the short acting opioids, intravenous propofol or inhalational agents. Elderly patients seem to tolerate laparoscopic surgery remarkably well, provided they are not in left ventricular failure. Using short acting agents and avoiding administration of significant amounts of intravenous fluids allows quick recovery to their pre-operative state within minutes of the end of surgery.

Many colorectal surgeons will state that a perineal approach is much better tolerated than a transabdominal approach but anaesthesia used in perineal procedures such as a Delorme’s or Altemeier’s procedure has its disadvantages. Many surgeons require the patient to be positioned prone for this operation. This position is associated with unpredictable circulatory changes that may require the surgeon to abandon the operation to that the patient can be put onto his or her back to allow correction of the circulation, which can rapidly worsen in patients with a tendency toward heart failure. Airway pressures, when ventilating the lungs of a patient in a prone position, are often very similar to those seen during well-conducted laparoscopic surgery, except that there is no pneumoperitoneum to splint the alveoli, resulting in higher trasnsmural pressure differences in the alveoli, because there is no pneumoperitoneum to splint them. Spinal anaesthesia is only practicable when the patient can be operated upon in the lithotomy position. Putting the patient prone soon after a spinal injection of local anaesthetic could lead to extensive spread of the local anaesthetic, with sympatholytic activity accompanying that spread. The anaesthetist then has to respond with vasopressors and fluid boluses during surgery, leaving the patient to sort out the physiology when the spinal anaesthetic wears off.

Out of 84 patients with ERP, none were treated conservatively. 80 were offered a LVR and of the remaining 4 patients, one was considered laparoscopically inoperable because of fixed flexure contractions. Another was demented and unconcerned about bowel function but in retrospect could have been offered LVR. The other two were operated by surgeons not familiar with LVR and could have been operated by LVR. ASA grade or co-morbidity was not a decisive factor in deciding what technique to use.

CONCLUSION

LVR combines the advantages of laparoscopy (shorter hospital stay, quicker patient recovery, lower costs and less morbidity), a trans-abdominal approach (reliable improvement in incontinence, low recurrence rate) and an anterior rectal dissection (autonomic nerve-sparing, improves constipation, avoids inducing new-onset constipation). LVR is tolerated very well in the elderly, allowing avoidance of the compromise of a perineal procedure (trade-off of safety for high recurrence and unreliable resolution of incontinence). We believe that this makes perineal procedure indicated rarely only in the very frail, and thus almost obsolete. The classical algorithm of abdominal procedure if young / perineal procedure if old should be abandoned, especially as the population is increasingly ageing.

REFERENCES

1. Lowry AC, Simmang CL, Boulos P, Farmer KC, Finan PJ, Hyman N, Killingback M, Lubowski DZ, Moore R, Penfold C, Savoca P, Stitz R, Tjandra JJ. Consensus statement of definitions for anorectal physiology and rectal cancer: report of the Tripartite Consensus Conference on Definitions for Anorectal Physiology and Rectal Cancer, Washington, D.C., May 1, 1999 Dis Colon Rectum. 2001 Jul;44(7):915-9. Review.

2. Kuijpers HC. Treatment of complete rectal prolapse: to narrow, to wrap, to suspend, to fix, to encircle, to plicate or to resect? World J Surg. 1992 Sep-Oct;16(5):826-30. Review.

3. Yakut M, Kaymakçioglu N, Simsek A, Tan A, Sen D. Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse. A retrospective analysis of 94 cases. Int Surg. 1998 Jan-Mar;83(1):53-5.

4. Bachoo P, Brazzelli M, Grant A. Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD001758. Review.

5. Madiba TE, Baig MK, Wexner SD. Surgical management of rectal prolapse. Arch Surg. 2005 Jan;140(1):63-73. Review

6. Kellokumpu IH, Vironen J, Scheinin T. Laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse: a prospective study evaluating surgical outcome and changes in symptoms and bowel function. Surg Endosc. 2000 Jul;14(7):634-40.

7. Heah SM, Hartley JE, Hurley J, Duthie GS, Monson JR. Laparoscopic suture rectopexy without resection is effective treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000 May;43(5):638-43.

8. Kessler H, Jerby BL, Milsom JW. Successful treatment of rectal prolapse by laparoscopic suture rectopexy. Surg Endosc. 1999 Sep;13(9):858-61.

9. Bruch HP, Herold A, Schiedeck T, Schwandner O. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and outlet obstruction. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999 Sep;42(9):1189-94; discussion 1194-5.

10. Benoist S, Taffinder N, Gould S, Chang A, Darzi A. Functional results two years after laparoscopic rectopexy. Am J Surg. 2001 Aug;182(2):168-73.

11. Himpens J, Cadière GB, Bruyns J, Vertruyen M. Laparoscopic rectopexy according to Wells. Surg Endosc. 1999 Feb;13(2):139-41.

12. Darzi A, Henry MM, Guillou PJ, Shorvon P, Monson JR. Stapled laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Surg Endosc. 1995 Mar;9(3):301-3.

13. Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Reitano MC, Salamina G, Rosati R, Montorsi M, Fichera G, Strinna M, Peracchia A. Laparotomic vs. laparoscopic rectopexy in complete rectal prolapse. Dig Surg. 1999;16(5):415-9.

14. Stevenson AR, Stitz RW, Lumley JW. Laparoscopic-assisted resection-rectopexy for rectal prolapse: early and medium follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998 Jan;41(1):46-54.

15. Muir EG. Rectal prolapse. Proc R Soc Med. 1955 Jan;48(1):33-44.

16. Baker R, Senagore AJ, Luchtefeld MA. Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open resection. Rectopexy offers excellent results. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995 Feb;38(2):199-201.

17. Boccasanta P, Rosati R, Venturi M, Montorsi M, Cioffi U, De Simone M, Strinna M, Peracchia A. Comparison of laparoscopic rectopexy with open technique in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse: clinical and functional results. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1998 Dec;8(6):460-5.

18. Solomon MJ, Young CJ, Eyers AA, Roberts RA. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 2002 Jan;89(1):35-9.

19. Salkeld G, Bagia M, Solomon M. Economic impact of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy. Br J Surg. 2004 Sep;91(9):1188-91.

20. Tou S, Brown SR, Malik AI, Nelson RL. Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 8;(4):CD001758.

21. D'Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 2004 Nov;91(11):1500-5.

22. D'Hoore A, Penninckx F. Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Surg Endosc. 2006 Dec;20(12):1919-23.

23. Slawik S, Soulsby R, Carter H, Payne H, Dixon AR. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction. Colorectal Dis. 2008 Feb;10(2):138-43.

24. Boons P, Collinson R, Cunningham C, Lindsey I. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse improves constipation and avoids new-onset constipation. Colorectal Dis 2009 (E-pub Apr)

25. Lechaux JP, Lechaux D, Perez M. Results of Delorme's procedure for rectal prolapse. Advantages of a modified technique. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995 Mar;38(3):301-7.

26. Pascual Montero JA, Martínez Puente MC, Pascual I, Butrón Vila T, García Borda FJ, Lomas Espadas M, Hidalgo Pascual M. Complete rectal prolapse clinical and functional outcome with Delorme's procedure. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2006 Nov;98(11):837-43. English, Spanish.

27. Marchal F, Bresler L, Ayav A, Zarnegar R, Brunaud L, Duchamp C, Boissel P. Long-term results of Delorme's procedure and Orr-Loygue rectopexy to treat complete rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Sep;48(9):1785-90.

28. Watts AM, Thompson MR. Evaluation of Delorme's procedure as a treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 2000 Feb;87(2):218-22.

29. Liberman H, Hughes C, Dippolito A. Evaluation and outcome of the delorme procedure in the treatment of rectal outlet obstruction. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000 Feb;43(2):188-92.

30. Pescatori M, Interisano A, Stolfi VM, Zoffoli M. Delorme's operation and sphincteroplasty for rectal prolapse and fecal incontinence. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1998;13(5-6):223-7.

31. Agachan F, Reissman P, Pfeifer J, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD. Comparison of three perineal procedures for the treatment of rectal prolapse. South Med J. 1997 Sep;90(9):925-32.

32. Kling KM, Rongione AJ, Evans B, McFadden DW. The Delorme procedure: a useful operation for complicated rectal prolapse in the elderly. Am Surg. 1996 Oct;62(10):857-60.

33. Oliver GC, Vachon D, Eisenstat TE, Rubin RJ, Salvati EP. Delorme's procedure for complete rectal prolapse in severely debilitated patients. An analysis of 41 cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994 May;37(5):461-7.

34. Senapati A, Nicholls RJ, Thomson JP, Phillips RK. Results of Delorme's procedure for rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994 May;37(5):456-60. Review.

35. Tobin SA, Scott IH. Delorme operation for rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 1994 Nov;81(11):1681-4.

36. Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Barbieri S, Roviaro G. Impact of new technologies on the clinical and functional outcome of Altemeier's procedure: a randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006 May;49(5):652-60.

37. Habr-Gama A, Jacob CE, Jorge JM, Seid VE, Marques CF, Mantese JC, Kiss DR, Gama-Rodrigues J. Rectal procidentia treatment by perineal rectosigmoidectomy combined with levator ani repair. Hepatogastroenterology. 2006 Mar-Apr;53(68):213-7.

38. Chun SW, Pikarsky AJ, You SY, Gervaz P, Efron J, Weiss E, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse: role of levatorplasty. Tech Coloproctol. 2004 Mar;8(1):3-8; discussion 8-9.

39. Zbar AP, Takashima S, Hasegawa T, Kitabayashi K. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier's procedure): a review of physiology, technique and outcome. Tech Coloproctol. 2002 Sep;6(2):109-16. Review.

40. Kimmins MH, Evetts BK, Isler J, Billingham R. The Altemeier repair: outpatient treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001 Apr;44(4):565-70.

41. Takesue Y, Yokoyama T, Murakami Y, Akagi S, Ohge H, Yokoyama Y, Sakashita Y, Tatsumoto N, Miyamoto K, Matsuura Y. The effectiveness of perineal rectosigmoidectomy for the treatment of rectal prolapse in elderly and high-risk patients. Surg Today. 1999;29(3):290-3.

42. Kim DS, Tsang CB, Wong WD, Lowry AC, Goldberg SM, Madoff RD. Complete rectal prolapse: evolution of management and results. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999 Apr;42(4):460-6; discussion 466-9.

43. Deen KI, Grant E, Billingham C, Keighley MR. Abdominal resection rectopexy with pelvic floor repair versus perineal rectosigmoidectomy and pelvic floor repair for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 1994 Feb;81(2):302-4.

44. Johansen OB, Wexner SD, Daniel N, Nogueras JJ, Jagelman DG. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy in the elderly. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993 Aug;36(8):767-72.

45. Williams JG, Rothenberger DA, Madoff RD, Goldberg SM. Treatment of rectal prolapse in the elderly by perineal rectosigmoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992 Sep;35(9):830-4.

46. Finlay IG, Aitchison M. Perineal excision of the rectum for prolapse in the elderly. Br J Surg. 1991 Jun;78(6):687-9.

47. Ramanujam PS, Venkatesh KS. Perineal excision of rectal prolapse with posterior levator ani repair in elderly high-risk patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 1988 Sep;31(9):704-6.

48. Prasad ML, Pearl RK, Abcarian H, Orsay CP, Nelson RL. Perineal proctectomy, posterior rectopexy, and postanal levator repair for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 1986 Sep;29(9):547-52.

49. Gopal KA, Amshel AL, Shonberg IL, Eftaiha M. Rectal procidentia in elderly and debilitated patients. Experience with the Altemeier procedure. Dis Colon Rectum. 1984 Jun;27(6):376-81.

50. Friedman R, Muggia-Sulam M, Freund HR. Experience with the one-stage perineal repair of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 1983 Dec;26(12):789-91.

51. Porter NH. Surgery for rectal prolapse. Br Med J. 1971 Jul 10;3(5766):113.

52. Altemeier WA, Culbertson WR, Schowengerdt C, Hunt J. Nineteen years' experience with the one-stage perineal repair of rectal prolapse. Ann Surg. 1971 Jun;173(6):993-1006.

53. Brazzelli M, Bachoo P, Grant A. Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults (Cochrane review). The Cochrane library, Issue 3, 2003.

54. Zafar N, Davies R, Greenslade GL, Dixon AR. The evolution of analgesia in an "Accelerated" recovery programme for resectional laparoscopic colorectal surgery with anastomosis.

Colorectal Dis. 2009 Jan 16. [Epub ahead of print]


All rights reserved © 2006. Bristol Surgery.
SPIRE Hospital, Bristol. 
{Contact us}
Contact: Claire Trenberth - 0117 9804051
claire.TRENBERTH@spirehealthcare.com
vp