[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.237.51.35. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
1.
Jacobs  LKLin  YJOrkin  BA The best operation for rectal prolapse.  Surg Clin North Am 1997;7749- 70PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Felt-Bersma  RJCuesta  MA Rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, rectocele and solitary ulcer syndrome.  Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2001;30199- 222PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Roig  JVBuch  EAlós  R  et al.  Anorectal function in patients with complete rectal prolapse: differences between continent and incontinent individuals.  Rev Esp Enferm Dig 1998;90794- 805PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Brodén  BSnellman  B Procidentia of the rectum: studies with cineradiography.  Dis Colon Rectum 1968;11330- 347PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Kuijpers  HC Treatment of complete rectal prolapse: to narrow, to wrap, to suspend, to fix, to encircle, to plicate or to resect?  World J Surg 1992;16826- 830PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Nicholls  RJ Rectal prolapse and the solitary ulcer syndrome.  Ann Ital Chir 1994;65157- 162PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Yakut  MKaymakciioglu  NSimsek  A  et al.  Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse: a retrospective analysis of 94 cases.  Int Surg 1998;8353- 55PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Wassef  RRothenberger  DAGoldberg  SM Rectal prolapse.  Curr Probl Surg 1986;23397- 451PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Siproudhis  LBellisant  EJuguet  F  et al.  Rectal adaptation to distension in patients with overt rectal prolapse.  Br J Surg 1998;851527- 1532PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Aitola  PTHiltunen  KMMatikainen  MJ Functional results of operative treatment of rectal prolapse over an 11-year period: emphasis on transabdominal approach.  Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42655- 660PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Briel  JWSchouten  WRBoerma  MO Long-term results of suture rectopexy in patients with fecal incontinence associated with incomplete rectal prolapse.  Dis Colon Rectum 1997;401228- 1232PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Hiltunen  KMMatikainen  MJAuvinen  OHietanen  P Clinical and manometric evaluation of anal sphincter function in patients with rectal prolapse.  Am J Surg 1986;151489- 492PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Keighley  MRFielding  JWLAlexander-Williams  J Results of Marlex mesh abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse in 100 consecutive patients.  Br J Surg 1983;70229- 232PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Cirocco  WCBrown  AC Anterior resection for the treatment of rectal prolapse: a 20-year experience.  Am Surg 1993;59265- 269PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Keighley  MRShouler  PJ Abnormalities of colonic function in patients with rectal prolapse and faecal incontinence.  Br J Surg 1984;71892- 895PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Mann  CVHoffman  C Complete rectal prolapse: the anatomical and functional results of treatment by an extended abdominal rectopexy.  Br J Surg 1988;7534- 37PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Tjandra  JJFazio  VWChurch  JM  et al.  Ripstein procedure is an effective treatment for rectal prolapse without constipation.  Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36501- 507PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Womack  NRWilliams  NSHolmfield  JHM  et al.  Pressure and prolapse—the cause of solitary rectal ulceration.  Gut 1987;281228- 1233PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Ripstein  CB Treatment of massive rectal prolapse.  Am J Surg 1952;8368- 71PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Cutait  D Sacro-promontory fixation of the rectum for complete rectal prolapse.  Proc R Soc Med 1959;52 ((suppl)) 105PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Carter  AE Rectosacral suture fixation for complete prolapse in the elderly, the frail and the demented.  Br J Surg 1983;70522- 523PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Novell  JROsborne  MJWinslet  MCLewis  AA Prospective randomised trial of Ivalon sponge versus sutured rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse.  Br J Surg 1994;81904- 906PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Graf  WKarlbom  UPåhlman  L  et al.  Functional results after abdominal suture rectopexy for rectal prolapse or intussusception.  Eur J Surg 1996;162905- 911PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Khanna  AKMisra  MKKumar  K Simplified sutured sacral rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse in adults.  Eur J Surg 1996;162143- 146PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Kellokumpu  IHVirozen  JScheinin  T Laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse: a prospective study evaluating surgical outcome and changes in symptoms and bowel function.  Surg Endosc 2000;14634- 640PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Heah  SMHartely  JHurley  J  et al.  Laparoscopic suture rectopexy without resection is effective treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.  Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43638- 643PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Kessler  HJerby  BLMilsom  JW Successful treatment of rectal prolapse by laparoscopic suture rectopexy.  Surg Endosc 1999;13858- 861PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Bruch  HPHerold  ASchiedeck  TSchwandner  O Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and outlet obstruction.  Dis Colon Rectum 1999;421189- 1194PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Benoist  STaffinder  NGould  S  et al.  Functional results two years after laparoscopic rectopexy.  Am J Surg 2001;182168- 173PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Penfold  JCHawley  PR Experiences of Ivalon sponge implant for complete rectal prolapse at St Mark’s Hospital.  Br J Surg 1972;59846- 848PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Morgan  CNPorter  NHKlugman  DJ Ivalon sponge in the repair of complete rectal prolapse.  Br J Surg 1972;59841- 846PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Scaglia  MFasth  SHallgren  T  et al.  Abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse: influence of surgical technique on functional outcome.  Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37805- 813PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Notaras  MJ The use of Mersilene mesh in rectal prolapse repair.  Proc R Soc Med 1973;66684- 686PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
Sayfan  JPinho  MAlexander-Williams  JKeighley  MRB Sutured posterior abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy compared with Marlex rectopexy rectal prolapse.  Br J Surg 1990;77143- 145PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Luukkonen  PMikkonen  UJärvinen  H Abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy vs rectopexy alone for rectal prolapse: a prospective, randomized study.  Int J Colorectal Dis 1992;7219- 222PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Winde  GReers  HNottberg  H  et al.  Clinical and functional results of abdominal rectopexy with absorbable mesh-graft for treatment of complete rectal prolapse.  Eur J Surg 1993;159301- 305PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Galili  YRabau  M Comparison of polyglycolic acid and polypropylene mesh for rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse.  Eur J Surg 1997;163445- 448PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Mollen  RMKuijpers  HCvan Hoek  F Effects of rectal mobilization and lateral ligaments division on colonic and anorectal function.  Dis Colon Rectum 2000;431283- 1287PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Himpens  JCadière  GBBruyns  JVertruyen  M Laparoscopic rectopexy according to Wells.  Surg Endosc 1999;13139- 141PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Darzi  AHenry  MMGuillou  PJ  et al.  Stapled laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse.  Surg Endosc 1995;9301- 303PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
Boccasanta  PVenturi  MReitano  MC  et al.  Laparotomic vs laparoscopic rectopexy in complete rectal prolapse.  Dig Surg 1999;16415- 419PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Zittel  TTManncke  KHaug  S  et al.  Functional results after laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse.  J Gastrointest Surg 2000;4632- 641PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Wells  C New operation for rectal prolapse.  Proc R Soc Med 1959;52602- 603PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Arndt  MPircher  W Absorbable mesh in the treatment of rectal prolapse.  Int J Colorectal Dis 1988;3141- 143PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Athanasiadis  SWeyand  GHeiligers  J  et al.  The risk of infection of three synthetic materials used in rectopexy with or without colonic resection for rectal prolapse.  Int J Colorectal Dis 1996;1142- 44PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Araki  YIsomoto  HTsuzi  Y  et al.  Trans-sacral rectopexy for recurrent complete rectal prolapse.  Surg Today 1999;29970- 972PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Lake  SPHancock  BDLewis  AA Management of pelvic sepsis after Ivalon rectopexy.  Dis Colon Rectum 1984;27589- 590PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Ross  AHThomson  JPS Management of infection after prosthetic abdominal rectopexy (Wells’ procedure).  Br J Surg 1989;76610- 612PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Wedell  JSchlageter  MMeier zu Eissen  P  et al.  Die problematiek der pelvinen sepsis nach rectopexie mittels kunstoff und ihre behandlung.  Chirurg 1987;58423- 427PubMedGoogle Scholar
50.
Speakman  CTMadden  MVNichols  RJKamm  MA Lateral ligament division during rectopexy causes constipation but prevents recurrence: results of a prospective randomised study.  Br J Surg 1991;781431- 1433PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Launer  DPFazio  VWWeakley  FL  et al.  The Ripstein procedure: a 16-year experience.  Dis Colon Rectum 1982;2541- 45PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Holmström  BBrodén  GDolk  A Results of the Ripstein operation in the treatment of rectal prolapse and internal rectal procidentia.  Dis Colon Rectum 1986;29845- 848PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Roberts  PLSchoetz  DJColler  JA  et al.  Ripstein procedure: Lahey Clinic experience: 1963-1985.  Arch Surg 1988;123554- 557PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Schultz  IMadoff  RDDolk  A  et al.  Continence is improved after the Ripstein rectopexy: different mechanisms in rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception?  Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39300- 306PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Schultz  IMellgren  ADolk  A  et al.  Long-term results and functional outcome after Ripstein rectopexy.  Dis Colon Rectum 2000;4335- 43PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Senapati  ANichols  RJThomson  JPPhillips  RK Results of Delorme’s procedure for rectal prolapse.  Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37456- 460PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Tobin  SAScott  IHK Delorme operation for rectal prolapse.  Br J Surg 1994;811681- 1684PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Madoff  RDMellgren  A One hundred years of rectal prolapse surgery.  Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42441- 450PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
McMahan  JDRipstein  CB Rectal prolapse: an update on the rectal sling procedure.  Am Surg 1987;5337- 40PubMedGoogle Scholar
60.
Takesue  YYokoyama  TMurakami  Y  et al.  The effectiveness of perineal rectosigmoidectomy for the treatment of rectal prolpase.  Surg Today 1999;29290- 293PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Frykman  HMGoldberg  SM The surgical treatment of rectal procidentia.  Surg Gynecol Obstet 1969;1291225- 1230PubMedGoogle Scholar
62.
Solla  JARotheberger  DAGoldberg  SM Colonic resection in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse.  Neth J Surg 1989;41132- 135PubMedGoogle Scholar
63.
Stevenson  ARStitz  RWLumley  JW Laparoscopic assisted resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse: early and medium follow-up.  Dis Colon Rectum 1998;4146- 54PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Azimuddin  KKhubchandani  ITRosen  L  et al.  Rectal prolapse: a search for the best operation.  Am Surg 2001;67622- 627PubMedGoogle Scholar
65.
Watts  JDRotheberger  DABuls  JG  et al.  The management of procidentia: 30 years’ experience.  Dis Colon Rectum 1985;2896- 102PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
66.
Deen  KIGrant  EBillingham  CKeighley  MRB Abdominal resection rectopexy with pelvic floor repair versus perineal rectosigmoidectomy and pelvic floor repair for full-thickness rectal prolapse.  Br J Surg 1994;81302- 304PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
Huber  FTStein  HSiewert  JR Functional results after treatment of rectal prolapse with rectopexy and sigmoid resection.  World J Surg 1995;19138- 143PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Kim  D-STsang  CBWong  WD  et al.  Complete rectal prolapse: evolution of management and results.  Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42460- 469PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Xynos  EChrysos  JTsiaoussis  J  et al.  Resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse: the laparoscopic approach.  Surg Endosc 1999;13862- 864PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
McKee  RFLauder  JCPoon  FW  et al.  A prospective randomized study of abdominal rectopexy with and without sigmoidectomy in rectal prolapse.  Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;174145- 148PubMedGoogle Scholar
71.
Muir  EG Rectal prolapse.  Proc R Soc Med 1955;4833- 44PubMedGoogle Scholar
72.
Stabins  SJ A new surgical procedure for complete rectal prolapse in the mentally ill patient: case report.  Surgery 1951;29105- 108PubMedGoogle Scholar
73.
Theuerkauf  FJ  JrBeahrs  OHHill  JR Rectal prolapse: causation and surgical treatment.  Ann Surg 1970;171819- 835PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
Schlinkert  RTBeart  RWWolff  BGPemberton  JH Anterior resection for complete rectal prolapse.  Dis Colon Rectum 1985;28409- 412PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
75.
Baker  RSenagore  AJLuchtefeld  MA Laparoscopic assisted vs open resection: rectopexy offers excellent results.  Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38199- 201PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
76.
Solomon  MJYoung  CJEyers  AARoberts  RA Randomised clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse.  Br J Surg 2002;8935- 39PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
77.
Blatchford  GJPerry  REThorson  AGChristensen  MA Rectal prolapse: rational therapy without foreign material.  Neth J Surg 1989;41126- 128PubMedGoogle Scholar
78.
Lechaux  JPAtienza  PGoasguen  N  et al.  Prosthetic rectopexy to the pelvic floor and sigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse.  Am J Surg 2001;182465- 469PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
79.
Brazzelli  MBachoo  PGrant  A Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;2CD001758PubMedGoogle Scholar
80.
Dietzen  CDPemberton  JH Perineal approaches for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse.  Neth J Surg 1989;41140- 144PubMedGoogle Scholar
81.
Delorme  R Sur le traitment des prolapses du rectum totaux pour l’excision de la muscueuse rectale ou rectocolique.  Bull Mem Soc Chir Paris 1900;26499- 518Google Scholar
82.
Pescatori  MInterisano  AStolfi  VMZoffoli  M Delorme’s operation and sphincteroplasty for rectal prolapse and fecal incontinence.  Int J Colorectal Dis 1998;13223- 227PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
83.
Kling  KMRongione  AJEvans  BMcFadden  DW The Delorme procedure: a useful operation for complicated rectal prolapse in the elderly.  Am Surg 1996;62857- 860PubMedGoogle Scholar
84.
Lechaux  JPLechaux  DPerez  M Results of Delorme’s procedure for rectal prolapse: advantages of a modified technique.  Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38301- 307PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
85.
Agachan  FReissman  PPfeifer  J  et al.  Comparison of three perineal procedures for the treatment of rectal prolapse.  South Med J 1997;90925- 932PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
86.
Oliver  GCVachon  DEisenstat  TE  et al.  Delorme’s procedure for complete rectal prolapse in severely debilitated patients: an analysis of 41 patients.  Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37461- 467PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
87.
Watts  AMIThompson  MR Evaluation of Delorme’s procedure as a treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.  Br J Surg 2000;87218- 222PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
88.
Liberman  HHughes  CDippolito  A Evaluation and outcome of the Delorme procedure in the treatment of rectal outlet obstruction.  Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43188- 192PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
89.
Sielezneff  IMalouf  ACesari  JBrunet  CSarles  JCSastre  B Selection criteria for internal rectal prolapse repair by Delorme’s transrectal excision.  Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42367- 373PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
90.
Miles  WE Rectosigmoidectomy as a method of treatment for procidentia recti.  Proc R Soc Med 1933;261445- 1452Google Scholar
91.
Altemeier  WACulbertson  WRSchwengerdt  C  et al.  Nineteen years’ expeience with the one-stage perineal repair of rectal prolapse.  Ann Surg 1971;173993- 1006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
92.
Ramanujam  PSVankatesh  KSFietz  MJ Perineal excision of rectal procidentia in elderly high-risk patients: a ten-year experience.  Dis Colon Rectum 1994;371027- 1030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
93.
Williams  JGRotheberger  DAMadoff  RDGoldberg  SM Treatment of rectal prolapse in the elderly by perineal rectosigmoidectomy.  Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35830- 834PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
94.
Johansen  OBWexner  SDDaniel  N  et al.  Perineal rectosigmoidectomy in the elderly.  Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36767- 772PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
95.
Prasad  MLPearl  RKAbcarian  H  et al.  Perineal proctectomy, posterior rectopexy and postanal levator repair for the treatment of rectal prolapse.  Dis Colon Rectum 1986;29547- 552PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
96.
Yoshioka  KOgunbiyi  OAKeighley  MRB Pouch perineal rectosigmoidectomy gives better functional results than conventional rectosigmoidectomy in elderly patients with rectal prolapse.  Br J Surg 1998;851525- 1526PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Review
January 1, 2005

Surgical Management of Rectal Prolapse

Author Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Surgery, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa (Dr Madiba); and Colorectal Unit (Dr Madiba), Department of Colorectal Surgery (Drs Baig and Wexner), Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston.

Arch Surg. 2005;140(1):63-73. doi:10.1001/archsurg.140.1.63
Abstract

Background  The problem of complete rectal prolapse is formidable, with no clear predominant treatment of choice. Surgical management is aimed at restoring physiology by correcting the prolapse and improving continence and constipation with acceptable mortality and recurrence rates. Abdominal procedures are ideal for young fit patients, whereas perineal procedures are reserved for older frail patients with significant comorbidity. Laparoscopic procedures with their advantages of early recovery, less pain, and possibly lower morbidity are recently added options. Regardless of the therapy chosen, matching the surgical selection to the patient is essential.

Objective  To review the present status of the surgical treatment of rectal prolapse.

Data Sources  Literature review using MEDLINE. All articles reporting on rectopexy were included.

Study Selection  Articles reporting on prospective and retrospective comparisons were included. Case reports were excluded, as were studies comparing data with historical controls.

Data Extraction  The results were tabulated to show outcomes of different studies and were compared. Studies that did not report some of the outcomes were noted as “not stated.”

Data Synthesis  Abdominal operations offer not only lower recurrence but also greater chance for functional improvements. Suture and mesh rectopexy produce equivalent results. However, the polyvinyl alcohol (Ivalon) sponge rectopexy is associated with an increased risk of infectious complications and has largely been abandoned. The advantage of adding a resection to the rectopexy seems to be related to less constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy has similar results to open rectopexy but has all of the advantages related to laparoscopy. Perineal procedures are better suited to frail elderly patients with extensive comorbidity.

Conclusions  Abdominal procedures are generally better for young fit patients; the results of all abdominal procedures are comparable. Suture and mesh rectopexy are still popular with many surgeons—the choice depends on the surgeon’s experience and preference. Similarly, the procedure may be done through a laparoscope or by laparotomy. Perineal procedures are preferable for patients who are not fit for abdominal procedures, such as elderly frail patients with significant comorbidities. The decision between perineal rectosigmoidectomy and Delorme procedures will depend on the surgeon’s preference, although the perineal rectosigmoidectomy has better outcomes.

×