section name header

Evidence summaries

Surgery for Total Rectal Prolapse in Adults

There are not enough data to assess the effectiveness of different surgical methods for repair of total rectal prolapse in adults. Level of evidence: "D"

A Cochrane review [Abstract] 1 included 15 studies with a total of 1007 subjects. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery, and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy. One trial compared rectopexy versus rectal mobilisation only (no rectopexy), performed with either open or laparoscopic surgery. One trial compared different techniques used in perineal surgery, and another included three comparisons: abdominal versus perineal surgery, resection versus no resection rectopexy in abdominal surgery and different techniques used in perineal surgery.

There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more post-operative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer post-operative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation. Recurrence of full-thickness prolapse was greater for mobilisation of the rectum only compared with rectopexy.

Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by limitations in study quality, inconsistency (heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes) and by imprecise results (few patients, limited study size for each comparison).

References

  • Tou S, Brown SR, Nelson RL. Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(11):CD001758. [PubMed]

Primary/Secondary Keywords