Published online Jul 27, 2016. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v8.i7.508
Peer-review started: January 25, 2016
First decision: March 25, 2016
Revised: April 9, 2016
Accepted: April 21, 2016
Article in press: April 22, 2016
Published online: July 27, 2016
AIM: To report our experience with perineal repair (Delorme’s procedure) of rectal prolapse with particular focus on treatment of the recurrence.
METHODS: Clinical records of 40 patients who underwent Delorme’s procedure between 2003 and 2014 were reviewed to obtain the following data: Gender; duration of symptoms, length of prolapse, operation time, ASA grade, length of post-operative stay, procedure-related complications, development and treatment of recurrent prolapse. Analysis of post-operative complications, rate and time of recurrence and factors influencing the choice of the procedure for recurrent disease was conducted. Continuous variables were expressed as the median with interquartile range (IQR). Statistical analysis was carried out using the Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: Median age at the time of surgery was 76 years (IQR: 71-81.5) and there were 38 females and 2 males. The median duration of symptoms was 6 mo (IQR: 3.5-12) and majority of patients presented electively whereas four patients presented in the emergency department with irreducible rectal prolapse. The median length of prolapse was 5 cm (IQR: 5-7), median operative time was 100 min (IQR: 85-120) and median post-operative stay was 4 d (IQR: 3-6). Approximately 16% of the patients suffered minor complications such as - urinary retention, delayed defaecation and infected haematoma. One patient died constituting post-operative mortality of 2.5%. Median follow-up was 6.5 mo (IQR: 2.15-16). Overall recurrence rate was 28% (n = 12). Recurrence rate for patients undergoing an urgent Delorme’s procedure who presented as an emergency was higher (75.0%) compared to those treated electively (20.5%), P value 0.034. Median time interval from surgery to the development of recurrence was 16 mo (IQR: 5-30). There were three patients who developed an early recurrence, within two weeks of the initial procedure. The management of the recurrent prolapse was as follows: No further intervention (n = 1), repeat Delorme’s procedure (n = 3), Altemeier’s procedure (n = 5) and rectopexy with faecal diversion (n = 3). One patient was lost during follow up.
CONCLUSION: Delorme’s procedure is a suitable treatment for rectal prolapse due to low morbidity and mortality and acceptable rate of recurrence. The management of the recurrent rectal prolapse is often restricted to the pelvic approach by the same patient-related factors that influenced the choice of the initial operation, i.e., Delorme’s procedure. Early recurrence developing within days or weeks often represents a technical failure and may require abdominal rectopexy with faecal diversion.
Core tip: Delorme’s procedure is an attractive and often the only treatment of rectal prolapse available to elderly individuals who often have no physiological reserves to withstand abdominal rectopexy. The management of the recurrent disease is frequently restricted to the perineal approach by the same patient-related factors that limited the choice of the initial operation. Early recurrence developing within days or weeks is difficult to treat and in sufficiently fit patients may require abdominal rectopexy combined with faecal diversion.