Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “RECTAL PROLAPSE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Functional results after laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

We investigated the functional results after laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse in 29 patients at least 12 months postoperatively. Twenty patients were evaluated completely pre- and postoperatively (median 22 months postoperatively, range 12 to 54 months). Six patients were interviewed by telephone, two patients were lost to follow-up, and one patient died of causes unrelated to rectal prolapse. Patients underwent a proctologic examination, anoscopy, rigid sigmoidoscopy, fluoroscopic defecography, and anorectal manometry pre- and postoperatively, and an additional standardized interview postoperatively. Anorectal manometry showed a significant increase in maximum anal resting and squeeze pressures postoperatively (resting pressure 72 +/- 8 vs. 95 +/- 13 mm Hg, pre- vs. postoperatively; P = 0.046; squeeze pressure 105 +/- 17 vs. 142 +/- 19 mm Hg, pre- vs. postoperatively; P = 0.035), and continence improved postoperatively (Wexner incontinence score 6.0 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.9 +/- 0.8 pre- vs. postoperatively, P = 0.02). Twenty (77%) of 26 patients were satisfied with the operative result, but functional morbidity was observed in four patients, with two patients complaining of severe evacuation problems. Rectal prolapse recurred in one patient 42 months postoperatively (recurrence rate 1 [3.8%] of 26 patients). Functional results were very similar to those obtained after open rectopexy, with symptoms of prolapse and incontinence improved in the great majority of patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Mesh invasion of the rectum: an unusual late complication of rectal prolapse repair.

Various surgical techniques have been described for repair of rectal prolapse; however, there is no agreement on a standard treatment method. In the Ripstein procedure, the rectum is fixed to the sacrum with a piece of mesh material. We describe the case of a patient who had undergone a Ripstein procedure to address rectal prolapse 6 years before admission to our clinic. His complaints were anal discomfort, abdominal discomfort, and tenesmus of 2 years duration. Rectoscopy and abdominal computed tomography (CT) revealed that the mesh had penetrated the rectal wall and was located within the rectal lumen 7-8 cm from the anal verge. Once the mesh was endoscopically, and the patient's symptoms resolved completely. Various complications of mesh implantation for rectal prolapse repair have been documented, but rectal wall penetration has not been reported to date. This report presents our case of this unusual complication and reviews the relevant literature.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Rectal prolapse: which surgical option is appropriate?

Numerous surgical procedures have been suggested to treat rectal prolapse. In elderly and high-risk patients, perineal approaches such as Delorme's procedure and perineal rectosigmoidectomy (Altemeier's procedure) have been preferred, although the incidence of recurrence and the rate of persistent incontinence seem to be high when compared with transabdominal procedures. Functional results of transabdominal procedures, including mesh or suture rectopexy and resection-rectopexy, are thought to be associated with low recurrence rates and improved continence. Transabdominal procedures, however, usually imply rectal mobilization and fixation, colonic resection, or both, and some concern is voiced that morbidity, in terms of infection or leakage, and mortality could be increased. If we focus on surgical outcome, our own experience of laparoscopic resection-rectopexy for rectal prolapse shows that the laparoscopic approach is safe and effective, and functional results with respect to recurrence are favorable. However, the controversy "which operation is appropriate?" cannot be answered definitely, as a clear definition of rectal prolapse, the extent of a standardized diagnostic assessment, and the type of surgical procedure have not been identified in published series. Randomized trials are needed to improve the evidence with which the optimal surgical treatment of rectal prolapse can be defined.

Aged↗
PubMed2000

Concurrent genital and rectal prolapse: two pathologies--one joint operation.

This study is a prospective assessment of a joint operation to repair concomitant genital and rectal prolapse, including 10 women treated for concomitant genital and rectal prolapse from 1991 to 1995. Joel-Cohen vaginal hysterectomy was used to correct the genital prolapse, followed by the Altemeier procedure (transperineal rectosigmoidectomy) to correct the rectal prolapse. The post-operative course was uneventful in all cases and there were no recurrences of prolapse in the three year follow up period. Improvement of sphincteric tone was shown in all cases by transrectal manometry, and bladder and rectal continence was maintained. The combined surgical procedure for concurrent genital and rectal prolapse is easy to perform and safe and efficient in terms of recurrence and continence. It is hoped this report will increase multidisciplinary awareness of an effective solution for a potentially debilitating problem.

Aged↗
PubMed1987

Treatment of rectal prolapse. A clinical study of 50 consecutive patients.

The results of surgical treatment of rectal prolapse in 50 consecutive adult patients were evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 51.8 +/- 15.9 years. 8 of the patients were males. 13 of the patients had recurrent prolapse after operations performed earlier elsewhere. There were 4 types of operations: Delorme's mucosal sleeve resection (n = 21), perineal rectosigmoidectomy (n = 7), low anterior resection (n = 12) and abdominal rectopexy (n = 10). There was no operative mortality. The main postoperative complications were perforation or stricture of the rectum in the Delorme group and ileus and anastomotic complications in the low anterior resection group. The frequency of postoperative complications was clearly highest in the low anterior resection group (67%). Follow-up examination was performed 5.2 +/- 3.9 years postoperatively. The recurrence rate of prolapse was highest after perineal operations. Fecal incontinence was almost always associated with recurrence of prolapse and its incidence increased with reoperation. In conclusion, abdominal rectopexy was superior to other forms of operation in the treatment of rectal prolapse. Successfull correction of rectal prolapse does not necessarily rule out the need for later surgery for faecal incontinence.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Mucosal plication (Gant-Miwa procedure) with anal encircling for rectal prolapse--a review of the Japanese experience.

Although mucosal plication for rectal prolapse, known as the Gant-Miwa procedure, is described in some English textbooks, it has been infrequently performed in the West. However, this procedure has been used and developed in conjunction with anal encircling in Japan since the 1960s and is still considered to play a major role in the treatment of rectal prolapse. Certain technical details have been found necessary to ensure the success of the procedure, especially in the technique of anal encircling. For example, the use of Teflon tape and routing relatively deeply and outside the external anal sphincter are necessary. Clinical results show a recurrence rate of 0 to 31 percent with no mortality and almost never any serious complications such as significant bleeding or severe sepsis, which are occasionally encountered in other perineal procedures. Most patients report improved continence after this procedure, and worsening of evacuation is rarely encountered based on our experience. Some physiologic studies have shown improved resting pressure and rectal sensation, which can have a positive influence on the defecatory function. We believe that the Gant-Miwa procedure with anal encircling should be considered as a treatment of choice among perineal procedures for rectal prolapse.

Anal Canal↗
PubMed2004

Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative constipation is a common problem with most mesh suspension techniques used to correct rectal prolapse. Autonomic denervation of the rectum subsequent to its complete mobilization has been suggested as a contributory factor. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcome of patients who underwent a novel, autonomic nerve-sparing, laparoscopic technique for rectal prolapse. METHODS: Between 1995 and 1999, 42 patients had laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. The long-term results after a median follow-up of 61 (range 29-98) months were analysed. RESULTS: There were no major postoperative complications. Late recurrence occurred in two patients. In 28 of 31 patients with incontinence there was a significant improvement in continence. Symptoms of obstructed defaecation resolved in 16 of 19 patients. During follow-up, new onset of mild obstructed defaecation was noted in only two patients. Symptoms suggestive of slow-transit colonic obstipation were not induced. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is an effective technique for the correction of rectal prolapse and appears to avoid severe postoperative constipation. The ventral position of the prosthesis may explain the beneficial effect on symptoms of obstructed defaecation.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Long-term outcome after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic repair (LR) of rectal prolapse is potentially associated with earlier recovery and lower perioperative morbidity, as compared with open transabdominal repair (OR). Data on the long-term recurrence rate and functional outcome are limited. METHODS: Perioperative data on rectal prolapse in relation to all LRs performed between December 1991 and April 2004 were prospectively collected. The LR patients were matched by age, gender, and procedure type with OR patients who underwent surgery during the same period. Patients with previous complex abdominal surgery or a body mass index exceeding 40 were excluded from the study. Data on recurrence rate, bowel habits, continence, and satisfaction scores were collected using a telephone survey. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients (age, 56.8 +/- 18.1 years; female, 87%) underwent attempted LR. An operative complication deferred repair in two cases. Among the 111 patients, 42 had posterior mesh fixation, and 67 had sutured rectopexy (32 patients with sigmoid colectomy for constipation). Eight patients (7.2%) had conversion to laparotomy. Matching was established for 86 patients. The LR patients had a shorter hospital stay (mean, 3.9 vs 6.0 days; p < 0.0001). The 30-day reoperation and readmission rates were similar for the two groups. The rates for recurrence requiring surgery were 9.3% for LR and 4.7% for OR (p = 0.39) during a mean follow-up period of 59 months. An additional seven patients in each group reported possible recurrence by telephone. Postoperatively, 35% of the LR patients and 53% of the OR patients experienced constipation (p = 0.09). Constipation was improved in 74% of the LR patients and 54% of the OR patients, and worsened, respectively, in 3% and 17% (p = 0.037). The postoperative incontinence rates were 30% for LR and 33% for OR (p = 0.83). Continence was improved in 48% of the LR patients and 35% of the OR patients, and worsened, respectively, in 9% and 18% (p = 0.22). The mean satisfaction rates for surgery (on a scale of 0 to 10) were 7.3 for the LR patients and 8.1 for the OR patients (p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The hospital stay is shorter for LR than for OR. Both functional results and recurrent full-thickness rectal prolapse were similar for LR and OR during a mean follow-up period of 5 years.

Abdomen↗
PubMed1999

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse and outlet obstruction.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of both laparoscopic suture rectopexy and resection-rectopexy in the treatment of complete and incomplete rectal prolapse, outlet obstruction, or both. METHODS: Data from surgery were collected prospectively. Semiannual follow-up was performed by assessment of recurrence, continence, and constipation using patients' history, physical examination, continence score, and anorectal manometry. Statistical analysis was performed by chi-squared test and Student's t-test (P < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant). RESULTS: Between September 1992 and February 1997, 72 patients (68 females) with a mean age of 62 (range, 23-88) years were treated laparoscopically. Indications for surgery were rectal prolapse in 21 patients, rectal prolapse combined with outlet obstruction in 36 patients, and outlet obstruction alone in 15 patients. Standard procedure was a laparoscopic suture rectopexy. A sigmoid resection was added in 40 patients. Mean duration of surgery was 227 (range, 125-360) minutes for rectopexy and 258 (range, 150-380) minutes for resection-rectopexy. Conversion was necessary in 1.4 percent (n = 1). Overall complication rate was 9.7 percent (n = 7) and mortality rate was 0 percent. Mean postoperative hospitalization was 15 (range, 6-47) days. All patients with a minimal follow-up of two years (n = 53) could be enrolled in a prospective follow-up study (mean follow-up, 30 months). No recurrence of rectal prolapse had to be recognized. Sixty-four percent of patients with incontinence before surgery were continent or had improved continence. In patients experiencing constipation preoperatively, constipation was improved or completely removed in 76 percent. No additional symptoms of constipation occurred after surgery. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic procedures in the treatment of pelvic floor disorders, e.g., rectal prolapse or outlet obstruction, lead to acceptable functional results. However, follow-up has to be extended and long-term results of recurrence, continence, and constipation have to be evaluated.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

The value of posterior levator repair in the treatment of anorectal incontinence due to rectal prolapse--a clinical and manometric study.

BACKGROUND: When treating a complete rectal prolapse, the most important objective is elimination of the prolapse. In addition, restoration of sufficient anorectal continence is extremely important for the patients. We examined the value of posterior levator repair with respect to stabilization of the pelvic floor and to improvement in anorectal incontinence. METHODS: In patients with disabling anorectal incontinence, a posterior levatorplasty can be concomitantly performed during operative removal of the prolapse. To facilitate evaluation of the operative results, we implemented a scoring system to judge the patients' subjective symptoms of incontinence; in addition, we performed manometric measurements of resting and squeezing pressures of the anal sphincter to objectify the anorectal incontinence. RESULTS: From 1991 to 1997, 84 patients (mean age 65+/-10 years, 38-91 years; 79 women, 5 men) with complete rectal prolapse and severe incontinence were operatively treated; corresponding follow-ups were done. The following procedures were performed: Frykmann-Goldberg, 28 patients; Wells, 18 patients; Ripstein, 22 patients; and perineal proctectomy, 16 patients. Incontinence for liquid and solid stools was present in all of these patients. Posterior levatorplasty was implemented in 38 patients, and in this group we found significantly better postoperative results, both clinically and in the manometric measurements. Continence was improved by 84% in the group with levatorplasty, but improvement was only 67% in the other group (P<0.05). The incontinence score decreased significantly in the group with levatorplasty (preoperative 16.4+/-3.1, postoperative 9.3+/-4.5, P<0.05, vs the other group with preoperative 15.6+/-4.2, postoperative 11.5+/-5.1). Manometric observations in the group with levatorplasty demonstrated 55% improvement in resting pressure (preoperative 29+/-17 cm H2O, postoperative 45+/-21 cm H2O, P<0.05) and 40% improvement in squeezing pressure (preoperative 61+/-25 cm H2O, postoperative 85+/-31 cm H2O, P<0.05). In the group without levatorplasty, resting and squeezing pressure improved only by 20% (resting pressure: preoperative 32+/-16 cm H2O, postoperative 38+/-18 cm H2O; squeezing pressure: preoperative 64+/-29 cm H2O, postoperative 75+/-26 cm H2O). CONCLUSIONS: Posterior levatorplasty is an easy and efficient operative procedure which facilitates an improvement in anorectal continence. There are no apparent disadvantages. For this reason, levatorplasty can be part of operative procedures implemented in the treatment of a complete rectal prolapse accompanied by disabling anorectal incontinence.

Aged↗
PubMed2000

Laparoscopic suture rectopexy without resection is effective treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

PURPOSE: The study was undertaken to evaluate the role of laparoscopic suture rectopexy without resection as a safe and effective treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse. METHOD: Data were prospectively collected and analyzed on 25 patients who underwent laparoscopic rectopexy without resection for full-thickness rectal prolapse between October 1994 and July 1998. Four patients had conversions from laparoscopic to open surgery. Two patients had recurrent prolapse previously managed by Delorme's procedure. Another two patients had solitary rectal ulcer syndrome associated with their full-thickness rectal prolapse. There were a total of three males. Mean age was 72 (range, 37-89) years. The preoperative and postoperative course of each patient was followed up, with attention paid to first bowel movement, hospital stay, duration of surgery, fecal incontinence, constipation, recurrent prolapse, morbidity, and mortality. Follow-up was made by clinic appointments and, if necessary, by telephone review. RESULTS: Median follow-up period was 26 (range, 1-41) months. Mean duration of surgery was 96 (range, 50-150) minutes. Postoperatively, the median time for first bowel movement was four (range, 2-10) days. Median hospital stay was seven (range, 3-23) days. Overall, 15 patients (60 percent) either improved or remained unchanged with respect to continence. There was an improvement in 10 of 20 patients (50 percent) among those with continence Grade 2 or more (P < 0.05). Seven patients (28 percent) remained incontinent. No patient became more incontinent after surgery. Constipation, which was present in 9 patients (36 percent) preoperatively, affected 11 patients (44 percent) after rectopexy (P > 0.05; not significant). Postoperative morbidity included a port site hernia and deep venous thrombosis in one patient, a repaired rectal perforation, a retroperitoneal hematoma with prolonged ileus (1 case), and a superficial wound infection (1 case). One patient with solitary rectal ulcer syndrome in the laparoscopic surgery group remained unhealed despite resolution of the rectal prolapse after rectopexy and required abdominoperineal resection. Two patients (laparoscopic surgery = 1 and open surgery = 1) had severe constipation after surgery and both required loop colostomies. There were no cases of operative mortality or recurrent prolapse. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic suture rectopexy without resection is both safe and effective in this frequently frail population and offers a minimally invasive approach that may have potential advantages for selected groups of patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Transsacral rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse.

A prospective study was carried out to analyze the clinical and functional results of transsacral rectopexy with a DEXON mesh in the elderly or poor risk patients with complete rectal prolapse. Six patients with complete rectal prolapse were operated from 1994 to 1996. All patients could be traced for examination with anorectal manometry and defecography. None of the patients had recurrence for the longest three years. In postoperative clinical symptoms, fecal incontinence score recovered from the preoperative mean score of 3.8 to the postoperative 1.2 and constipation was improved in 4 out of 5 cases (80.0%). Straining anorectal angle (S-ARA) by defecography improved from the preoperative value of 120.6 +/- 6.9 degrees to the postoperative value of 98.5 +/- 3.5 degrees (p < 0.05) and the perineal descent (PD) improved from the preoperative value of 16.2 +/- 2.5 cm to the postoperative value 8.1 +/- 1.3 cm (p < 0.05). Maximal resting pressure (MRP) increased from the preoperative value of 20.5 +/- 3.7 cmH2O to the postoperative value of 40.5 +/- 4.8 cmH2O (p < 0.05). Transsacral rectopexy with DEXON mesh for complete rectal prolapse is useful as this technique is simple to conduct, can be applied to the elderly or poor risk patients, replaces rectal prolapse, improves defecation troubles and recovers fecal incontinence.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Digital assessment of lower rectum fixity in rectal prolapse (DALR): a simple clinical anatomical test to determine the most suitable approach (abdominal versus perineal) for repair.

Selection of an appropriate approach to treat full thickness rectal prolapse remains problematic and controversial. We propose that rectal prolapse may be classified as 'low type' (true rectal prolapse) or 'high type' (intussusception of the sigmoid with a fixed lower rectum). This assessment can be made via a simple clinical test of digital rectal assessment of lower rectal fixity ('the hook test') based on anatomic changes in rectal prolapse to guide the selection process. In cases with the low-type prolapse, a perineal approach is appropriate (either Delorme's procedure, or rectosigmoidectomy with or without pelvic floor repair). For the high type, an abdominal rectopexy with or without high anterior resection is needed. Retrospective analysis of our cases treated over the last 6 years showed a recurrence rate of 6% in perineal procedures and 0% in abdominal rectopexy combined with resection to date. We believe that employing our simple test and classification can contribute to better patient selection for either approach, minimize anaesthetic and surgical risks and also result in lower recurrence rates.

Abdomen↗
PubMed2004

Strategy for selection of type of operation for rectal prolapse based on clinical criteria.

PURPOSE: Reports of outcome after surgery for rectal prolapse predominantly relate to single operative procedures. A single surgical operation is not appropriate for all patients with rectal prolapse. We describe a selective policy based on clinical criteria. METHODS: Patients were offered surgery according to the following broad clinical protocol. Those who were unfit for abdominal surgery had a perineal operation. The remainder had a suture abdominal rectopexy. A sigmoid resection was added for patients in whom incontinence was not a predominant symptom. RESULTS: Surgery was performed in 159 patients. Of these, 57 had a perineal operation, 65 had fixation rectopexy, and 37 had resection rectopexy. There were no in-hospital deaths, and major complications occurred in five patients (3.5 percent). Minimum follow-up was 3 years. Of the 143 patients with long-term follow-up, recurrence occurred in 7 (5 percent). Constipation increased from 41 to 43 percent (59-61/143) and incontinence decreased from 43 to 19 percent (61 to 27/143). CONCLUSIONS: A selective policy has improved outcome compared with reports of a single operation. Future studies might consider an objective method of selecting the type of operation for rectal prolapse.

Abdomen↗
PubMed1992

Treatment of rectal prolapse in the elderly by perineal rectosigmoidectomy.

The results and complications of perineal rectosigmoidectomy for complete rectal prolapse in 114 patients have been reviewed. Most patients were elderly and high risk by virtue of other concurrent medical conditions. Fourteen patients (12 percent) developed significant postoperative complications. Hospital stay was short (median, four days). Ten patients were lost to follow-up. The remaining 104 patients were followed for 3 to 90 months. Eleven patients (10 percent) developed recurrent full-thickness rectal prolapse, six of them underwent repeat perineal rectosigmoidectomy. Sixty-seven patients had fecal incontinence prior to surgery. Eleven patients underwent concomitant levatoroplasty; 10 of them either improved or regained full continence of feces postoperatively. Twenty-six of the 56 patients who underwent perineal rectosigmoidectomy alone improved or regained full continence. Rectal prolapse can be successfully treated by perineal rectosigmoidectomy in elderly, high-risk patients with minimal morbidity. Levatoroplasty dramatically improves fecal incontinence occurring in association with rectal prolapse.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[The functional and manometric-volumetric results following abdominal rectopexy for total rectal prolapse].

Functional changes after the posterior abdominal rectopexy for the treatment of rectal prolapse are not fully understood. We studied the effects of Wells' or Ripstein's rectopexy on functional characteristics as related to anal sphincter function, rectal volume and sensory function in 21 patients with complete rectal prolapse. We have observed an improvement of continence over 70 per cent in both groups. However, an absent or a decreased call to stool, constipation and evacuation difficulties are the aftermath of Wells' rectopexy, while these complaints appear basically unaffected by Ripstein's technique. Sensory thresholds for sense of filling and urge were significantly raised after Wells' rectopexy even one year after operation, whereas after Ripstein's operation sense of filling was not significantly affected and while sense of urge was increased early postoperatively, it was not significantly changed at one year postoperative control. In conclusion, when fecal incontinence appears associated to a complete rectal prolapse has good chances to improve postoperatively. Preoperative evacuation difficulties seems to be unaffected by a posterior abdominal rectopexy, Wells or Ripstein, but an extensive dissection of the rectum with the division of the lateral stalks, as it is performed in Wells' operation, seems to be a procedure that can create a further burden of problems to the patient and it seems coupled to a manovolumetric elevation of rectal sensory thresholds.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Influence of rectal prolapse on the asymmetry of the anal sphincter in patients with anal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Anal sphincter defects have been shown to increase pressure asymmetry within the anal canal in patients with fecal incontinence. However, this correlation is far from perfect, and other factors may play a role. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of rectal prolapse on anal pressure asymmetry in patients with anal incontinence. METHODS: 44 patients, (42 women, mean age: 64 (11) years), complaining of anal incontinence, underwent anal vector manometry, endo-anal ultrasonography (to assess sphincter defects) and pelvic viscerogram (for the diagnosis of rectal prolapse). Resting and squeeze anal pressures, and anal asymmetry index at rest and during voluntary squeeze were determined by vector manometry. RESULTS: Ultrasonography identified 19 anal sphincter defects; there were 9 cases of overt rectal prolapse, and 14 other cases revealed by pelvic viscerogram (recto-anal intussuception). Patients with rectal prolapse had a significantly higher anal sphincter asymmetry index at rest, whether patients with anal sphincter defects were included in the analysis or not (30 (3) % versus 20 (2) %, p < 0.005). Among patients without rectal prolapse, a higher anal sphincter asymmetry index during squeezing was found in patients with anal sphincter defects (27 (2) % versus 19 (2) %, p < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In anal incontinent patients, anal asymmetry index may be increased in case of anal sphincter defect and/or rectal prolapse. In the absence of anal sphincter defect at ultrasonogaphy, an increased anal asymmetry index at rest may point to the presence of a rectal prolapse.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Abdominal rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse: preliminary results of a new technique.

PURPOSE: Although the technique for the surgical repair of rectal prolapse has advanced over the years, no ideal procedure has been found. We aim to test a new surgical procedure for abdominal rectopexy that uses the greater omentum to support the rectum below the rectopexy, to reconstruct the anorectal angle and dispense with the need for synthetic mesh, thus reducing the risk of infection. METHODS: A series of ten patients, all young and medically fit, underwent repair surgery for rectal prolapse with the new rectopexy technique. Some patients had concomitant sigmoidectomy. Preoperative and postoperative assessment included a clinical examination, anal manometry and defecography. RESULTS: Follow-up lasted a mean of 56.4 months. None of the patients had recurrent rectal prolapse or infection. Postoperative assessment at 24 months disclosed significant improvements in all the bowel and sphincter variables assessed. The 8 patients who had severe incontinence preoperatively had notably improved and 4 were fully continent, 3 moderately incontinent, and only 1 patient had persistently high levels of incontinence. In only 1 patient who initially had severe incontinence, continence completely regressed and severe constipation developed. Maximal basal pressure values increased significantly after surgery (p=0.0025), although they increased slightly less evidently in patients in whom marked incontinence persisted at postoperative follow-up. Maximal voluntary contraction pressure also increased significantly after surgery (p=0.0054), although the values changed less than those for basal pressure. During rest, squeeze and straining, and in all the patients who regained continence, even those who recovered it only partly, surgery substantially reduced the anorectal angle. The reduction during rest was statistically significant (p=0.0062). CONCLUSIONS: The rectopexy technique we tested in patients with rectal prolapse avoids the need for synthetic mesh, and provides good results in terms of bowel and sphincter function, without infection or recurrence.

Abdomen↗