Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

See our updated masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

Durable Approaches to Recurrent Rectal Prolapse Repair May Require Avoidance of Index Procedure. Diseases of the colon and rectum Bordeianou, L., Ogilvie, J. W., Saraidaridis, J. T., Olortegui, K. S., Ratto, C., Ky, A. J., Oliveira, L., Vogler, S. A., Gurland, B. H., Steering Committee for the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Quality Improvement in Rectal Prolapse Surgery Database Pilot 2024

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse is associated with unique technical challenges, partly determined by the surgical approach utilized for the index operation. Success rates are variable and data to determine the best approach in patients with recurring prolapse are lacking.OBJECTIVE: To assess current surgical approaches to patients with prior rectal prolapse repairs and to compare short-term outcomes of de novo and redo procedures, including recurrence of rectal prolapse.DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospective database.SETTING: The Multicenter Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium Prospective Quality Improvement database. Deidentified surgeons at more than 25 sites (81% high volume) self-reported patient demographics, prior repairs, symptoms of incontinence and obstructed defecation, and operative details, including history of concomitant repairs and prior prolapse repairs.INTERVENTIONS: Incidence and type of repair used for prior rectal prolapse surgery were recorded. Primary and secondary outcomes of index and redo operations were calculated. Patients undergoing rectal prolapse re-repair (redo) were compared to patients undergoing first (de novo) rectal prolapse repair. The incidence of rectal prolapse recurrence in de novo and redo operations was quantified.OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of rectal prolapse recurrence in de novo and redo settings.RESULTS: Eighty-nine (19.3%) of 461 patients underwent redo rectal prolapse repair. On short-term follow-up, redo patients had prolapse recurrence rates similar to those undergoing de novo repair. However, patients undergoing redo procedures rarely had the same operation as their index procedure.LIMITATIONS: Self-reported, de-identified data.CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that recurrent rectal prolapse surgery is feasible and can offer adequate rates of rectal prolapse durability in the short term but may argue for a change in surgical approach for redo procedures when clinically feasible. See Video Abstract.

View details for DOI 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003212

View details for PubMedID 38479014