AbstractIntroductionRectal prolapse is a condition that occurs infrequently in men and there is little literature guiding treatment in this population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical approach and outcomes of rectal-prolapse repair in men.MethodsA retrospective multicenter review was conducted of consecutive men who underwent rectal-prolapse repair between 2004 and 2014. Surgical approaches and outcomes, including erectile function and fecal continence, were evaluated.ResultsDuring the study period, 58 men underwent rectal-prolapse repair and the mean age of repair was 52.7 ± 24.1 years. The mean follow-up was 13.2 months (range, 0.5–117 months). The majority of patients underwent endoscopic evaluation (78%), but few patients underwent anal manometry (16%), defecography (9%) or ultrasound (3%). Ten patients (17%) underwent biofeedback/pelvic-floor physical therapy prior to repair. Nineteen patients (33%) underwent a perineal approach (most were perineal proctosigmoidectomy). Thirty-nine patients (67%) underwent repair using an abdominal approach (all were suture rectopexy) and, of these, 77% were completed using a minimally invasive technique. The overall complication rate was 26% including urinary retention (16%), which was more common in patients undergoing the perineal approach (32% vs. 8%, P = 0.028), urinary-tract infection (7%) and wound infection (3%). The overall recurrence rate was 9%, with no difference between abdominal and perineal approaches. Information on sexual function was missing in the majority of patients both before and after surgery (76% and 78%, respectively).Conclusion Rectal-prolapse repair in men is safe and has a low recurrence rate; however, sexual function was poorly recorded across all institutions. Further studies are needed to evaluate to best approach to and functional outcomes of rectal-prolapse repair in men.
Surgical treatments for rectal prolapse: how does a perineal approach compare in the laparoscopic era?
