Rectal prolapse: which surgical option is appropriate?

Numerous surgical procedures have been suggested to treat rectal prolapse. In elderly and high-risk patients, perineal approaches such as Delorme’s procedure and perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier’s procedure) have been preferred, although the incidence of recurrence and the rate of persistent incontinence seem to be high when compared with transabdominal procedures. Functional results of transabdominal procedures, including mesh or suture rectopexy and resection–rectopexy, are thought to be associated with low recurrence rates and improved continence. Transabdominal procedures, however, usually imply rectal mobilization and fixation, colonic resection, or both, and some concern is voiced that morbidity, in terms of infection or leakage, and mortality could be increased. If we focus on surgical outcome, our own experience of laparoscopic resection–rectopexy for rectal prolapse shows that the laparoscopic approach is safe and effective, and functional results with respect to recurrence are favorable. However, the controversy “which operation is appropriate?” cannot be answered definitely, as a clear definition of rectal prolapse, the extent of a standardized diagnostic assessment, and the type of surgical procedure have not been identified in published series. Randomized trials are needed to improve the evidence with which the optimal surgical treatment of rectal prolapse can be defined.