Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier

Purpose Data comparing surgical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) following perineal repair of rectal prolapse are limited. The aim of our study was to compare the shortterm outcome and QOL of two perineal procedures in patients with rectal prolapse. Methods All patients with full-thickness rec...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Faisal, Elagili, Gurland, Brooke H., Liu, Xiaobo, Church, James Michael, Ozuner, Gokhan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Springer 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/1/elagili2015.pdf
http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10151-015-1337-y
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia
Language: English
id my.iium.irep.69627
record_format dspace
spelling my.iium.irep.696272019-04-03T06:29:59Z http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/ Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier Faisal, Elagili Gurland, Brooke H. Liu, Xiaobo Church, James Michael Ozuner, Gokhan RD Surgery Purpose Data comparing surgical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) following perineal repair of rectal prolapse are limited. The aim of our study was to compare the shortterm outcome and QOL of two perineal procedures in patients with rectal prolapse. Methods All patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse admitted to our institution and undergoing Delorme and Altemeier procedures from 2005 to 2013 were identified using an institutional, IRB-approved rectal prolapse database. Short-term outcomes and QOL were compared. Results Seventy-five patients (93 % female) underwent rectal prolapse surgery: 22 Altemeier and 53 Delorme, mean age 72 ± 15 years. Sixty-six percentage of patients were ASA grade III or IV (Table 1). The median hospital stay was longer in Altemeier’s group [4 (1–44) days vs. 3 (0–14) days; p = 0.01]. After a median follow-up of 13 (1–88) months, the rate of recurrent prolapse was 14 % (n = 11) [Altemeier 2 (9 %) vs. Delorme 9 (16 %) p = 0.071]. Postoperative complication rate was 12 % (n = 9) [Altemeier 5 (22 %) vs. Delorme 4 (7 %), p = 0.04]. There was no mortality. The Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores in each group were 0.6 ± 0.2 and 0.5 ± 0.3, respectively (p = 0.59), and were not changed by the surgery. Conclusions In patients where abdominal repair of rectal prolapse is judged to be unwise, a Delorme procedure offers short-term control of the prolapse with low risk of complications and with reasonable function. In addition patients that recur after a Delorme procedure can undergo another similar transanal procedure without compromising the vascular supply of the rectum. Springer 2015-09 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/1/elagili2015.pdf Faisal, Elagili and Gurland, Brooke H. and Liu, Xiaobo and Church, James Michael and Ozuner, Gokhan (2015) Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier. Techniques in Coloproctology, 19 (9). pp. 521-525. ISSN 1123-6337 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10151-015-1337-y 10.1007/s10151-015-1337-y
institution Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia
building IIUM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider International Islamic University Malaysia
content_source IIUM Repository (IREP)
url_provider http://irep.iium.edu.my/
language English
topic RD Surgery
spellingShingle RD Surgery
Faisal, Elagili
Gurland, Brooke H.
Liu, Xiaobo
Church, James Michael
Ozuner, Gokhan
Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier
description Purpose Data comparing surgical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) following perineal repair of rectal prolapse are limited. The aim of our study was to compare the shortterm outcome and QOL of two perineal procedures in patients with rectal prolapse. Methods All patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse admitted to our institution and undergoing Delorme and Altemeier procedures from 2005 to 2013 were identified using an institutional, IRB-approved rectal prolapse database. Short-term outcomes and QOL were compared. Results Seventy-five patients (93 % female) underwent rectal prolapse surgery: 22 Altemeier and 53 Delorme, mean age 72 ± 15 years. Sixty-six percentage of patients were ASA grade III or IV (Table 1). The median hospital stay was longer in Altemeier’s group [4 (1–44) days vs. 3 (0–14) days; p = 0.01]. After a median follow-up of 13 (1–88) months, the rate of recurrent prolapse was 14 % (n = 11) [Altemeier 2 (9 %) vs. Delorme 9 (16 %) p = 0.071]. Postoperative complication rate was 12 % (n = 9) [Altemeier 5 (22 %) vs. Delorme 4 (7 %), p = 0.04]. There was no mortality. The Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores in each group were 0.6 ± 0.2 and 0.5 ± 0.3, respectively (p = 0.59), and were not changed by the surgery. Conclusions In patients where abdominal repair of rectal prolapse is judged to be unwise, a Delorme procedure offers short-term control of the prolapse with low risk of complications and with reasonable function. In addition patients that recur after a Delorme procedure can undergo another similar transanal procedure without compromising the vascular supply of the rectum.
format Article
author Faisal, Elagili
Gurland, Brooke H.
Liu, Xiaobo
Church, James Michael
Ozuner, Gokhan
author_facet Faisal, Elagili
Gurland, Brooke H.
Liu, Xiaobo
Church, James Michael
Ozuner, Gokhan
author_sort Faisal, Elagili
title Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier
title_short Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier
title_full Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier
title_fullStr Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier
title_full_unstemmed Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier
title_sort comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: delorme versus altemeier
publisher Springer
publishDate 2015
url http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/1/elagili2015.pdf
http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10151-015-1337-y
_version_ 1643619415625826304