Open Approaches for Rectal Prolapse John Hartley Academic Surgical Unit
Transcription
Open Approaches for Rectal Prolapse John Hartley Academic Surgical Unit
Open Approaches for Rectal Prolapse John Hartley Academic Surgical Unit University of Hull Open procedures for rectal prolapse Open operations for rectal prolapse • Perineal operations inferior to abdominal procedures, but definite role • Delorme’s procedure – simple but high recurrence rate, can be repeated • Perineal rectosigmoidectomy – more complex but lower recurrence rate • “If the patient is fit enough and life expectancy > 5yrs abdominal approach preferred” Keighley and Williams 2nd Edition 2001 Open operations for rectal prolapse Major colorectal procedures – Consultant and higher trainees Procedures for prolapse Perineal Abdominal JH 2002-2004 281 10 1 HST yr 6 198 6 4 HST yr 6 191 8 1 HST yr 4 87 3 1 The realities – Yorkshire colon and rectal surgery Open operations for rectal prolapse A range of possibilities: • Exclusion procedures • Pelvic floor repair • Anterior or posterior rectopexy • Resection – alone or with rectopexy Open operations for rectal prolapse Sigmoid exclusion procedure (Lahaut’s operation) • Rectum fully mobilised in pelvis • Rectosigmoid sutured to posterior rectus sheath • Sigmoid extra-peritonealised behind rectus muscle Open operations for rectal prolapse Lahaut’s operation • 33 pts • 1 death (3%) • No recurrences • 11 of 12 pts improved continence • One faecal fistula (?ischaemic) • One obstruction Mortensen et al Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1984:66:17 18 Open operations for rectal prolapse Pelvic floor repair via the abdomen • Full anterior and posterior mobilisation of the rectum • Repair of pelvic floor posterior (originally ant and post) to rectum • Difficult access • Pelvic floor thin and attenuated • Largely replaced by rectopexy Pelvic floor repair for prolapse Results of abdominal pelvic floor repair for prolapse Authors Procedure N Mortality Recurrence (%) Snellman 1961 Ant. repair 42 0 4 (10) Porter 1962 Ant. Repair 46 0 23 (50) Kupfer and Goligher 1970 Post. Repair 63 1 5 (8) Klaaborg et al 1985 Post. repair 23 0 3 (13) Hughes and Gleadell 1962 Ant and post. Repair 84 1 5 (6) From Keighley and Williams 2001 Comments Mucosal recurrence Open procedures for rectal prolapse Rectopexy • Probably the operation of choice • Recurrence rates approx. 2% • Continence restored in 60-80% with rectopexy alone • How should rectum be fixed? • When should resection be added? Open operations for rectal prolapse Anterior rectopexy (Ripstein procedure) • Full mobilisation of rectum • Fixation to sacral promontary by sling (polypropylene, teflon or fascia) • Principle complication – fibrous stricture Anterior rectopexy Anterior rectopexy N Mortality (%) Recurrence (%) Comments Gordon and Hoexter 1978 1111 4 (0.3) 26 (2) Impaction 14, stricture 20 (1.8%) Morgan 1980 64 2 (1.6) 2 (3) Stenosis Launer 1982 54 0 4 (7) Stricture 9 (17%) Holmstrom 1986 108 3 (2.8) 5 (4) Stricture 4 Tjandra 1993 142 1 (0.1) 10 (8) 1/3 recurrences >10 yrs post op From Keighley and Williams 2001 Open operations for rectal prolapse Posterior rectopexy • Posterior aspect of fully mobilised rectum attached to sacrum • Lateral peritoneum divided, posterior mobilisation to tip of coccyx, division of lateral ligaments • No anterior restriction, distensible rectum • Mesh to sacrum and lateral aspects rectum Posterior rectopexy Posterior rectopexy Method of fixation • Teflon • Polypropylene (marlex) • Polyvinyl alcohol sponge (Well’s procedure) - infection (recurrence) • Vicryl • Gore-Tex • SIMPLE SUTURES Sutured posterior rectopexy Posterior rectopexy (suture only) N Mortality (%) Recurrence (%) Loygue 1971 146 2 (1.3) 5 (3) Carter 1983 32 0 0 Goligher 1984 52 0 1 (2) Graham 1984 23 1 (4.3) 0 Blatchford 1989 42 0 2 (5) Sayfan 1997 19 0 0 From Keighley and Williams 2001 Prosthetic vs suture posterior rectopexy (no resection) Ivalon sponge (n=31) Sutures alone (n=32) Hospital stay (days) 14 (8-52) 14 (8-50) Mortality 0 0 Complications 6 (19%) 3 (9%) Recurrent prolapse 1 (3%) 1 (3%) Late postop incontinence 6/10 2/10 Postop constipation 10 (31%) 15 (48%) Novell et al. Br J Surg 1994;81:904-906. Division of lateral ligaments in mesh posterior rectopexy Lateral ligaments divided (n=14) Lateral ligaments preserved (n=12) Preop Postop Preop Postop 3 2 4 2 Time 54 straining (%) 54 12 56 No. constipated 3 10 6 7 Rectal prolapse 14 0 12 6 Continence score Speakman et al. Br J Surg 1991;78:1431-1433 Open operations for rectal prolapse Resection alone • Sigmoid or partial rectal resection (n=113) • Incontinence: - Improved 23 (20%) - Same 13 (11%) - Worse 10 (9%) • Sepsis morbidity: 52% after “low” and 19% after high anastomosis • Recurrence at 10 yrs 14% after “high” and 9% after “low” resections Schlinkert et al Dis Colon Rectum 1985:28:409-412 Resection Rectopexy Resection Rectopexy • Aims to achieve low recurrence rates and avoid long term constipation University of Minnesota series • 138 pts • Anastomotic leaks in 5 (4%) • Recurrent prolapse in 2 (1.4%) • Continence improved in all but 1 pt • Constipation improved in 56% same in 35% worse in 9% Watts et al. Dis Colon Rectum 1985;28:96-102. Rectopexy +/- Resection Preop status and outcome Marlex rectopexy (n=16) Rectopexy and sigmoidectomy (n=13) Incontinent preop 12 9 Unchanged or worse 3 3 Continence restored 9 6 Constipated preop 3 5 Unchanged or worse 3 1 Constipation improved 0 4 Normal bowel habit preop 13 8 Unchanged 9 8 Became constipated 4 0 Sayfan et al. Br J Surg 1990;77:143-145. Rectopexy +/- Resection Constipation (%) Incontinence (%) Preop Postop Preop Postop Rectopexy (n=129) 47 (36) 42 (33) 48 (37) 25 (19) Resection rectopexy (n=18) 12 (67) 2 (11) 5 (28) 3 (17) Tjandra et al. Dis Colon Rectum 1993:36;501-507 Open Approaches for Rectal Prolapse Summary • Lower recurrence rates but higher morbidity than perineal procedures • Fixation superior to pelvic floor repair, or resection alone • Posterior fixation superior results • Sutures alone comparable to mesh fixation • Less constipation with concomitant resection Open Approaches for Rectal Prolapse Conclusions Sigmoid resection with sutured rectopexy offers: • Low risk of recurrence • The long term avoidance of constipation • PROCEDURE OF CHOICE • (why not laparoscopically?)