Evaluation of Delorme’s Procedure in the Treatment of Complete Rectal Prolapse- A Comparison with Abdominal Rectopexy (Well’s procedure)

Background: There are versatile operative techniques for treating complete rectal prolapse. Every procedure has some advantages and disadvantages. Delorme’s procedure and abdominal rectopexy (Well’s procedure) have gained more popularity. But to determine which approach is better, it is needed to evaluate the functional outcome of both procedures. Objective: To compare the outcome of Delorme’s procedure and abdominal rectopexy to treat complete rectal prolapse. Methodology: A randomized control trial was conducted in 25 patients with complete rectal prolapse in the department of Surgery, RMCH. They were divided into two groups by randomization. Fifteen patients included in Group-I underwent Delorme’s procedure, and ten patients included in group-II underwent abdominal rectopexy (Well’s procedure). The outcome of both procedures was compared postoperatively. Results: In group-1, we have found uneventful outcomes of 10 (66.66%) patients, and hemorrhage, minor incontinence, and retention of urine were found in 2(13.3%), 1(6.66), and 4(26.66%) patients, respectively. In group-2 patients, 5(50%) patients recovered uneventfully, whereas hemorrhage, surgical site infection, retention of urine, bladder dysfunction, and constipation were found in 2(20%), 1(10%), 1(10%), 1(10%) and 2(20%) patients respectively. The mean operation time in group-I was 92.86 min and in Group 2 was 124.00 min with a p-value of 0.001. The average post-operative hospital stay after Delorme’s procedure was <4 days in 4 patients and 4-6 days in the rest 11 patients. But the hospital stay is a little lengthier in the case of abdominal rectopexy (Well’s procedure), where seven patients were discharged within 4-6 days, and three patients were discharged after the 5th day of operation. In group I, expenditure was <7000 taka in 10 (66.66%) patients, whereas in group-2 , the cost was 10000-15000 in 7(70%) patients with a p-value of 0.001. Conclusion: We can conclude that Delorme’s procedure is comparatively safer and cost-effective than Well’s procedure, considering different vital parameters. TAJ 2021; 34: No-1: 40-46

Outcome of Laparoscopic Versus Open Abdominal Rectopexy for the Treatment of Complete Rectal Prolapse-Our experience in Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University

Background: Complete rectal prolapse is a very distressing condition. In adults, the only potentially curative treatment for complete rectal prolapse is surgery either by transabdominal or perinea! approaches. Till date abdominal rectopexy is considered as the standard surgical treatment for complete rectal prolapse, which can be done laparoscopically or by open procedure. Objective: The purpose of the study was to observe the outcome of Laparoscopic rectopexy in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse by subjective assessment and to compare the result with that of conventional open abdominal rectopexy. Methodology: This randomized clinical trial was carried out in the Department of Surgery at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka, from July 2012 to June 2014 for a period of twenty four (24) months. Patients who presented with complete rectal prolapse with age ranging from 25 to 70 years irrespective of gender were selected as study population. Patients were randomized by lottery method into two groups as group I who underwent laparoscopic rectopexy (LR) and group II who underwent open rectopexy (OR). Result: A total number of 50 patients were recruited in this study of which 25 patients were. in group I and 25 patients were in group II. The mean (s.d.) age was 49.40 (13.22) years and 46.48(13.27) years in group I and group II respectively (p>0.05). The mean (s.d.) operative time was 115(19) minutes in group I and 75(12) minutes in group II (p<0.05). In this study 1(4.0%) patient and 6 (24.0%) patients had abdominal wound infection in group I and in group II respectively (p>0.05). Mean (s.d.) ambulation time was 1.96 (0.67) days in group I and 3.92(1.15) days in groups II (p<0.05). Postoperative hospital stay mean (s.d.) was 3.08(1.18) days in group I and 8.16(3.57) days in group II (p<0.05). Overall patients satisfaction were 92% and 76% in group I and group II respectively (p>0.05). Conclusion: Laparoscopic rectopexy is a better option than conventional open abdominal rectopexy for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse. Journal of Surgical Sciences (2015) Vol. 19 (1) : 3-7

Comparison between laparoscopic and open abdominal rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: controlled clinical trial

Background: Abdominal rectopexy is an appropriate treatment option for full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP). Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and surgical outcome of laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy in treatment of FTRP by comparing this procedure with the traditional open approach.Methods: Thirty consecutive cases with FTRP were included and subjected to abdominal posterior mesh rectopexy from September 2013 to February 2016 at Sohag University Hospital. Thirteen patients were managed laparoscopically and 17 patients underwent open posterior mesh repair. Demographic data and surgical outcome were compared in both groups.Results: Laparoscopic group showed an earlier tolerance to oral feeding (1.26±0.42 versus 2.16±1.36 days, p=0.03), and earlier hospital discharge and return to work (5.63±2.91 versus 8.24±4.64 days, p=0.016, 18.28±2.61 versus 28.64±3.82 days, p=0.032, respectively). The mean consumed postoperative analgesics per day was less among laparoscopic group (1.63±16.2 versus 2.68±34.21 ampoule/day, p=0.012). Incidence of wound infection, wound dehiscence, prolonged ileus and postoperative chest infection were more in open group. There were significant postoperative improvement of continence status, rectal bleeding and abdominal pain in each group. Incidence of postoperative constipation was slightly increased in both groups, but without significant difference. Recurrence occurred in one case only in open group. There were no mortalities in both groups.Conclusions: Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy for FTRP can be done safely even in elderly patients. It offers less postoperative pain, low incidence of postoperative morbidities, early hospital discharge and return to work, in addition to cosmetically better outcome. Laparoscopic rectopexy has the same functional outcome as open technique.