Perineal rectosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse: role of levatorplasty

Abstract.

Background:

The management of full thickness rectal prolapse remains controversial. Although abdominal approaches have a lower recurrence rate than do perineal operations, they are associated with a higher morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of perineal rectosigmoidectomy with and without levatorplasty.

Methods:

Between 1989 and 1999, a total of 109 consecutive patients (10 men) underwent 120 perineal procedures. These patients were retrospectively evaluated in two groups on the basis of the type of surgery received: perineal rectosigmoidectomy (PRS) or perineal rectosigmoidectomy with levatorplasty (PRSL). Subsequent functional outcome and physiological parameters were assessed.

Results:

The patients had a mean age of 75.7 years (range, 23.0–94.8 years) and they were followed for an overall mean (in both groups combined) of 28.0 months (range, 0.4–126.4 months) after surgery. Mean duration of surgery was 78.1 min (SD=25.9) and 97.6 min (SD=32.3) in PRS and PRSL, respectively (p=0.002, unpaired t test). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of hospital stay, morbidity or mortality. Recurrence rates and mean time interval to recurrence were, respectively, 20.6% and 45.5 months in PRS compared to 7.7% and 13.3 months in PRSL (p=0.049, chi-square test; p=0.001, unpaired t test). Both groups had significant improvements in postoperative incontinence score (p<0.0001, Wilcoxon’s matched-pairs signed-ranks test), however, there were no significant changes in anorectal manometric findings and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency assessment.

Conclusions:

Perineal rectosigmoidectomy with levatorplasty is associated with a lower recurrence rate and a longer time to recurrence than perineal rectosigmoidectomy alone. Levatorplasty should be offered to patients when a perineal approach for rectal prolapse is selected.