Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier
Purpose Data comparing surgical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) following perineal repair of rectal prolapse are limited. The aim of our study was to compare the shortterm outcome and QOL of two perineal procedures in patients with rectal prolapse. Methods All patients with full-thickness rec...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/1/elagili2015.pdf |
| _version_ | 1848787146634166272 |
|---|---|
| author | Faisal, Elagili Gurland, Brooke H. Liu, Xiaobo Church, James Michael Ozuner, Gokhan |
| author_facet | Faisal, Elagili Gurland, Brooke H. Liu, Xiaobo Church, James Michael Ozuner, Gokhan |
| author_sort | Faisal, Elagili |
| building | IIUM Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Purpose Data comparing surgical outcomes and quality
of life (QOL) following perineal repair of rectal prolapse
are limited. The aim of our study was to compare the shortterm outcome and QOL of two perineal procedures in
patients with rectal prolapse.
Methods All patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse
admitted to our institution and undergoing Delorme and
Altemeier procedures from 2005 to 2013 were identified
using an institutional, IRB-approved rectal prolapse database. Short-term outcomes and QOL were compared.
Results Seventy-five patients (93 % female) underwent
rectal prolapse surgery: 22 Altemeier and 53 Delorme, mean
age 72 ± 15 years. Sixty-six percentage of patients were
ASA grade III or IV (Table 1). The median hospital stay was
longer in Altemeier’s group [4 (1–44) days vs. 3 (0–14) days;
p = 0.01]. After a median follow-up of 13 (1–88) months,
the rate of recurrent prolapse was 14 % (n = 11) [Altemeier
2 (9 %) vs. Delorme 9 (16 %) p = 0.071]. Postoperative
complication rate was 12 % (n = 9) [Altemeier 5 (22 %) vs.
Delorme 4 (7 %), p = 0.04]. There was no mortality. The
Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores in each group were
0.6 ± 0.2 and 0.5 ± 0.3, respectively (p = 0.59), and were
not changed by the surgery.
Conclusions In patients where abdominal repair of rectal
prolapse is judged to be unwise, a Delorme procedure
offers short-term control of the prolapse with low risk of
complications and with reasonable function. In addition patients that recur after a Delorme procedure can undergo
another similar transanal procedure without compromising
the vascular supply of the rectum. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T17:20:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | iium-69627 |
| institution | International Islamic University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T17:20:18Z |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publisher | Springer |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | iium-696272019-04-03T06:29:59Z http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/ Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier Faisal, Elagili Gurland, Brooke H. Liu, Xiaobo Church, James Michael Ozuner, Gokhan RD Surgery Purpose Data comparing surgical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) following perineal repair of rectal prolapse are limited. The aim of our study was to compare the shortterm outcome and QOL of two perineal procedures in patients with rectal prolapse. Methods All patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse admitted to our institution and undergoing Delorme and Altemeier procedures from 2005 to 2013 were identified using an institutional, IRB-approved rectal prolapse database. Short-term outcomes and QOL were compared. Results Seventy-five patients (93 % female) underwent rectal prolapse surgery: 22 Altemeier and 53 Delorme, mean age 72 ± 15 years. Sixty-six percentage of patients were ASA grade III or IV (Table 1). The median hospital stay was longer in Altemeier’s group [4 (1–44) days vs. 3 (0–14) days; p = 0.01]. After a median follow-up of 13 (1–88) months, the rate of recurrent prolapse was 14 % (n = 11) [Altemeier 2 (9 %) vs. Delorme 9 (16 %) p = 0.071]. Postoperative complication rate was 12 % (n = 9) [Altemeier 5 (22 %) vs. Delorme 4 (7 %), p = 0.04]. There was no mortality. The Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores in each group were 0.6 ± 0.2 and 0.5 ± 0.3, respectively (p = 0.59), and were not changed by the surgery. Conclusions In patients where abdominal repair of rectal prolapse is judged to be unwise, a Delorme procedure offers short-term control of the prolapse with low risk of complications and with reasonable function. In addition patients that recur after a Delorme procedure can undergo another similar transanal procedure without compromising the vascular supply of the rectum. Springer 2015-09 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/1/elagili2015.pdf Faisal, Elagili and Gurland, Brooke H. and Liu, Xiaobo and Church, James Michael and Ozuner, Gokhan (2015) Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier. Techniques in Coloproctology, 19 (9). pp. 521-525. ISSN 1123-6337 E-ISSN 1128-045X https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10151-015-1337-y 10.1007/s10151-015-1337-y |
| spellingShingle | RD Surgery Faisal, Elagili Gurland, Brooke H. Liu, Xiaobo Church, James Michael Ozuner, Gokhan Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme versus Altemeier |
| title | Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme
versus Altemeier |
| title_full | Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme
versus Altemeier |
| title_fullStr | Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme
versus Altemeier |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme
versus Altemeier |
| title_short | Comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: Delorme
versus Altemeier |
| title_sort | comparing perineal repairs for rectal prolapse: delorme
versus altemeier |
| topic | RD Surgery |
| url | http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/69627/1/elagili2015.pdf |